That "Why The Party Failed" Thing

In taking on Ross Douthat's tendentious piece on abortion, I didn't address his headline, ostensibly the thesis of his piece, that "Abortion Politics Didn’t Doom the G.O.P." Of course not. If the GOP's approach to abortion politics were to doom it, it would not be by driving away people like Kathleen Parker and Max Boot. It will be when the religious right gets tired of promises, promises, promises and no delivery, and the single issue anti-abortion voters either vote for a third party candidate or stay home. What doomed the Republican Party in the 2008 election was the Bush Administration's top-to-bottom, back-to-front incompetence, coupled with a dozen or so too many corruption scandals.

Which isn't to say that, within the foreseeable future, I won't be writing pretty much the same thing about a future Democratic administration....

I Wonder If We'll Ever Learn....

A few months back, I suggested that Mitt Romney's campaign song should be Everclear's "Everything to Everyone".

A song about a habitual appeaser for a man who will say anything to get elected, even if he said something completely different fifteen seconds earlier. The song is about how appeasement leads to failure, and I suspect that it will prove to be on the mark.

You remember Mitt Romney - the guy who got rich as a corporate raider, trading in no small part on his daddy's name and connections, became governor in Massachusetts, despite being a Republican professed a wide range of beliefs better associated with liberalism, passed a bunch of expensive legislation, and skipped town to run for President before his popularity might be tarnished by its cost. Oh, you can find more flattering biographies, even hagiographies, I'm sure... But from what I saw of the man running for President, I can't see how they're deserved. Oh, I know, his defenders say he never got a chance to "introduce himself", but... why are we still waiting for this mythic figure to step forward and fill the shoes of the doppleganger we have met?

Oh yeah, you do what they tell you to do,
You say what you say,
You try to be everything to everyone...

Not quite a year ago, when campaigning in Michigan, Mitt had this to say:

“If we are going to be the world’s greatest economic power, we must invest in our future. It’s time to be bold.” He continued, “First, I will make a five-fold increase – from $4 billion dollars to $20 billion dollars – in our national investment in energy research, fuel technology, materials science, and automotive technology.”

He said Washington has to invest in Michigan and not just bemoan the high unemployment rate and failing economy:

“Look how industries in other states have thrived from the spin out of technologies from our investment in these areas. So if we can invest in health care, in defense, and in space, why not also invest in energy and fuel technology here in Michigan?”

In a veiled attack on his rival here, he said that Washington is pessimistic about jobs coming back to Michigan, something John McCain has said previously, but has backed away from in the days before the primary:

“Washington politicians look at Michigan and see a rust belt. But the real rust is in Washington.” The former Massachusetts governor continued, “The pessimist will point to an empty factory and a laid off worker and say they have no future. Instead, I see a vital infrastructure, a skilled workforce, and an innovative spirit all worthy of an optimistic vision and deserving of a leader who will work tirelessly to deliver the power and potential of Michigan and the American people.”

In addition to offering to throw as much as $20 billion at the auto industry, Romney took a decidedly anti-environmentalist, anti-conservationist stance, but seemed to stand squarely behind the CEO's of the Big Three with no doubt about their ability to lead the transformation of the auto industry:

He criticized Mr. McCain for backing a bill that would have pushed to cap and trade greenhouse gas emissions, which Mr. Romney called a "job killer." And he promised to bring representatives from the automotive industry, unions, Congress, and the state of Michigan together in his first 100 to come up with a plan to "rebuild America's automotive leadership."

He unabashedly courted the union vote:

"I'm committed to fighting for every good job in this country and Michigan and across the country, and that connection I have to the state is just enough to help bring people who are normally thinking to vote toward the Democratic side to vote for me," he said.

When John McCain offered some genuine straight talk, that there had been a significant loss of manufacturing jobs in Michigan and "some of those jobs aren't coming back", Romney jumped down his throat:

Mr. Romney seized on Mr. McCain's "straight talk" as an example of Washington's pessimism and indifference to Detroit.
"A lot of Washington politicians are aware of Michigan's pain, but they haven't done anything about it," Mr. Romney said. "There are some people who don't think there's a future for the domestic automobile industry. They think the industry and its jobs are gone forever. They are wrong."

But remember, that wasn't the real Mitt Romney - we hadn't been introduced to him at that point.

You know all the right people,
You play all the right games,
You always try to be everything to everyone...

Now, unbelievably, it appears that Mitt Romney is trying to position himself as the heir to the Republican Party. This puts him in a rarefied league presently otherwise composed of Sarah Palin and, yes, Newt Gingrich. So what does Mr. Appeaser do when confronted with a crisis in the auto industry, and finds the leadership of his party suggesting that good manufacturing jobs are gone forever, don't have any concern for Michigan's pain, and have even less desire to do something about it? People he says are "wrong"? Did he hold true to his promise to bring the auto executives together to forge a new path for the industry? You guessed it - he's arguing that we should Let Detroit Go Bankrupt....

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

* * *

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries — from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

Break the union and fire the management teams for the Big Three? He's not making a policy statement - he's pandering to a faction of the Republican Party that sees little value in maintaining an American industrial base, and sees union busting as a leading civic virtue. As Motor Trend puts it,

"The financial straits that the Big Three find themselves in is not the product of our current economic downturn," harrumphed Senator Richard Shelby, senior Republican on the Banking Committee in a written statement, "but instead is the legacy of its manufacturing and labor force."

Well, yes, GM and Ford Motor Company haven't posted profits for years. And Chrysler, shielded first by Daimler and now Cerberus, is in worse shape. Cerberus has finally dropped the ruse that it's in the car business for the long-term.

Most of us would love just a portion of the UAW's health care benefits. But Shelby is typical of so many of our leaders who don't care about manufacturing, let alone automobile manufacturing. He's senior Republican of the Senate Banking Committee, after all.

Please excuse the following redundancy, but I can't emphasize it enough: making cars and trucks takes loads of time and money.

If you work for, or with, the banking or finance industries, you might someday come to realize this (as Cerberus has), but you won't like it. Wall Street, and much of Capitol Hill, likes "industry" to make "financial products," computer software and websites, things that can be made out of thin air or by college grads who don't ask for health benefits. Ask New York Times Pulitzer winner Thomas Friedman, who apparently believes Steve Jobs could have a Chevy iCar on the road in a year if the Apple chief took over GM.

We knew all along that Mitt was most at home in the banking and finance industries; he's apparently now out to prove that, with all of his claims of inherited wisdom about autos, he's not just another anti-manufacturing, anti-union Republican, he's ready to be their leader.

I think you like to be their simple toy,
I think you like to be their clown....

As Motor Trend notes, even those most sympathetic to the auto industry are anticipating significant structural changes, plant closures and union concessions, in all likelihood including the resignation of GM's CEO.

But while many Republicans see the fall of Detroit as just reward for the UAW, Democrats in Congress are ready to impose sacrifice on the UAW as well as automakers, in exchange for loan guarantees. Congressman [Elijah] Cummings [(D-MD)]... told MSNBC he supports bailing out GM, Ford and Chrysler, but that the automakers "may have to change union contracts."

The problem here isn't that Romney has pulled yet another of his flip-flops - his abdications of everything he once supposedly stood for in the name of advancing himself politically. If you've watched Romney at all, you know that the man (again, doppleganger Romney, as we haven't yet met the real one) will say and do anything to advance himself, even if it means repudiating what he professed only minutes before to be his deepest and most heart-felt beliefs. The problem isn't that he's calling for serious reforms by the beneficiaries of federal aid before it's granted (not that he's in favor of granting it... today). It's not that he's stupid. Perhaps it's the opposite. The man has an above-average mind, yet he spews nonsense that betrays either that he's fundamentally ignorant of his area of supposed expertise, or that he's lying.

Let's take a look at his two main criticisms of the auto industry. First, they're supposedly being broken by labor costs, and apparently nothing has been done to address this problem:

First, their huge disadvantage in costs relative to foreign brands must be eliminated. That means new labor agreements to align pay and benefits to match those of workers at competitors like BMW, Honda, Nissan and Toyota. Furthermore, retiree benefits must be reduced so that the total burden per auto for domestic makers is not higher than that of foreign producers.

Oh, you mean like, to a substantial degree, what they've already done? If I assumed Romney to be an idiot, his ignorance might be excusable, but he's not an idiot. Also, just because the process of shifting responsibility for retiree benefits and pensions from the Big Three onto the unions isn't yet complete doesn't mean it's not well underway. Does he truly not know this, or is he lying?

That extra burden is estimated to be more than $2,000 per car. Think what that means: Ford, for example, needs to cut $2,000 worth of features and quality out of its Taurus to compete with Toyota’s Avalon. Of course the Avalon feels like a better product — it has $2,000 more put into it. Considering this disadvantage, Detroit has done a remarkable job of designing and engineering its cars. But if this cost penalty persists, any bailout will only delay the inevitable.

This man has been in business? Truly? If we accept his figure, he believes that costs are fixed per vehicle, such that you should assign the same labor cost to a subcompact sedan as you would assign to a luxury SUV? With no consideration of actual cost or plant efficiency? He doesn't understand that the Big Three aren't building vehicles using $2,000 less in materials per car - they don't build cars for less, which is why on a per vehicle basis they lose money on those sales. As somebody who supposedly knows about business, if he truly believes that the Big Three are producing competitive products with better paid labor for $2,000 less per vehicle, why isn't he championing their management (like he used to) instead of calling for a decapitation?

Second, management as is must go. New faces should be recruited from unrelated industries - from companies widely respected for excellence in marketing, innovation, creativity and labor relations.

That's great idea! Ford should bring in a CEO from a company like Boeing! Oh... They did that? Then Chrysler should get taken over by a covey of Romney-style corporate raiders who can take it private, clean house and... Oh... They did that? Beyond that, did Romney fail to notice, growing up, that his Daddy rose to be CEO of AMC by virtue of his years of experience within the auto industry? Is his present contempt for industry experience, if not feigned, some sort of Oedipal thing? Really, assuming that it's dead wrong to use executives who are experienced with an industry to run or revive that industry, whence Romney's "magic men" from the outside who will achieve a 21st century transformation? According to Romney, after all, Cerberus couldn't find one, and their financial wizards are paying tens of millions in bonuses to hang on to the "failed" team they have in place.

The new management must work with labor leaders to see that the enmity between labor and management comes to an end. This division is a holdover from the early years of the last century, when unions brought workers job security and better wages and benefits. But as Walter Reuther, the former head of the United Automobile Workers, said to my father, “Getting more and more pay for less and less work is a dead-end street.”

Wait a minute... so forty or fifty years ago his father, either on his way to being or already installed as CEO of AMC, discussed these crucial issues with the head of the UAW, the UAW guy described them as being on an unsustainable path and... daddy squandered the opportunity? Seriously, what am I supposed to make of this anecdote?

I love this part, not because it's not a valid point, but because it's industry-specific:

Get rid of the planes, the executive dining rooms - all the symbols that breed resentment among the hundreds of thousands who will also be sacrificing to keep the companies afloat.

Where's Romney's similar call for sacrifice by the financial industry? No more executive dining rooms, corporate jets and the like, until the economy's back on track? There's unquestionably a culture of overcompensation among this nation's executive class, but it's silly to use the issue to attack the auto industry or to pretend that it is somehow unique. Assuming that it truly has ended its post-collapse luxury junkets, has AIG shuttered its executive dining room and grounded its corporate jets? Where's Romney's lament? Scheduling conflicts excluded, has Mitt himself ever declined a ride on a corporate jet or a free dinner in an executive dining room?

As a practical matter, the "fixes" Romney proposes can't go through unless the Big Three go through bankruptcy or something like it. And (assuming he doesn't flip-flop again tomorrow, or hasn't flip-flopped while I was writing this), if we don't put form over substance, I'm on the same page as him in terms of their being a need for some serious changes. But Romney's eager pandering to anti-union factions of the Republican Party, in breach of both word and supposed bond with the state he sort of claims as his own, is pretty revolting. I'm not willing to pretend that his flip-flops and misrepresentations are anything but posturing and positioning, in the hope of advancing himself politically - even if it harms the country.

Joe the Blegger

For only $14.95, you too can help keep "Joe the Plumber" from ever again having to do an honest day's work.

Ain't celebrity grand?

McCain's Campaign Failed, Because....

The right hand didn't know what the right hand was doing?

Take it from Charles Krauthammer: Sarah Palin was a huge mistake.

Palin was a mistake ("near suicidal," I wrote on the day of her selection) because she completely undercut McCain's principal case against Obama: his inexperience and unreadiness to lead. And her nomination not only intellectually undermined the readiness argument. It also changed the election dynamic by shifting attention, for days on end, to Palin's preparedness, fitness and experience -- and away from Obama's.

McCain thought he could steal from Obama the "change" issue by running a Two Mavericks campaign. A fool's errand from the very beginning. It defied logic for the incumbent-party candidate to try to take "change" away from the opposition. Election Day exit polls bore that out with a vengeance. Voters seeking the "change candidate" went 89 to 9 for Obama.

No, take it from Pat Buchanan: Sarah Palin is our hero and savior, and perhaps the second coming of, er, Reagan?

Yet by Sept. 10, McCain, thanks to Sarah Palin, whose selection had proven a sensation, had come from eight points behind to take the lead, and Joe Biden was wailing that maybe Hillary would have been a better choice for Obama.

I disagree with both of them, to some degree. Krauthammer exaggerates the import of Palin, and continues to overestimate the "he lacks experience" theme that by the time McCain chose Palin no longer seemed to be resonating with the public. Look at the polls before and after the convention/Palin bubble - McCain was losing on the experience argument. That's not to say it isn't a good argument or a relevant issue, but McCain's campaign apparently recognized that if they didn't introduce a "game changer" they were going to lose. McCain's choice of Palin left conservative elites like Krauthammer tied up in knots, but she was red meat to Pat Buchanan. Palin energized the religious right and helped McCain ensure their turn-out, and provided him with the ability to launch scurrilous attacks on Obama by proxy. In the weeks leading up to the election did you see Obama's support increase? No, it held steady while McCain's support increased - wavering Republicans returned to the fold.

But Palin turned out to be something well short of a net positive. Her lack of experience wasn't so much the issue as her poor performance. That, coupled with the economic crisis, hurt McCain, because it suggested that he lacked judgment. Krauthammer implies that McCain's post-convention/Palin bounce reflected a permanent advantage,

Then Lehman collapsed, and the financial system went off a cliff.

This was not just a meltdown but a panic. For an agonizing few days, there was a collapse of faith in the entire financial system - a run on banks, panicky money-market withdrawals, flights to safety, the impulse to hide one's savings under a mattress.

This did not just have the obvious effect of turning people against the incumbent party, however great or tenuous its responsibility for the crisis. It had the more profound effect of making people seek shelter in government.

Seriously? So Krauthammer is bucking the trend among right-wing pundits and is arguing that the election result gives Obama not only a mandate for massive change, but a mandate to impose socialism? He doesn't like Sarah Palin, but he's clearly been sipping her Kool-Aid. Odd as it seems to say this, for a more rational perspective (albeit one that doesn't survive past the end of the paragraph) let's turn back to Buchanan:

Then came the collapse of Lehman Brothers, the bailout of AIG, McCain’s assertion that the economy was fundamentally sound, and his panicked return to Washington to assist Bush and Hank Paulson push through a wildly unpopular bank bailout - using 700 billion in tax dollars to buy up rubbish paper the idiot bankers had put on their books.

Right up to the point of the collapse, McCain was repeating the mantra, "The fundamentals of the economy are strong." Right up to the point of the collapse, his campaign was dispatching its proxies to savage Obama's economic proposals, to call Obama naive, and to ridicule comparisons between our present financial situation and the great depression. Reality intervened, and how did McCain respond? By trying to convince the people that when he said, "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" he actually meant, "American workers are strong", and then fumbling a suspension of his campaign such that he simultaneously looked manipulative, disingenuous and inept.

How did Palin then hurt him? Not by being inexperienced, and certainly not in her appeal to "the base", but by appearing to undecided voters as further evidence of bad judgment - like the supposed suspension of his campaign, the Palin choice appeared at best to be a cynical manipulation that, despite the McCain camp's spin, put campaign ahead of country. McCain's defense of his choices wasn't "straight talk", and it wasn't mavericky - it was sad and disappointing. He wedded himself to G.W. not so much by his voting record and policy choices, but by his refusal to concede even obvious mistakes and his insistence that his mistakes were in fact good choices.

I'll grant that he couldn't exactly say, "I regret my choice of Sarah Palin" - and it isn't clear that he should have regrets, given that Palin largely did her job by energizing evangelical voters and social conservatives - and perhaps he had dug himself too deep a hole with statements reflecting himself as out-of-touch with the economy, but he didn't have to demean himself or to try to advance lines that, simply put, are ridiculous. Nobody with an ounce of sense is going to believe that living near Russia translates into having foreign policy experience. And if you're going to claim that somebody "understands the energy issues better than anybody I know in Washington, D.C.," you had best make sure she's not going to turn around and stick her foot into her mouth. Repeatedly.

Buchanan believes that McCain could have won the election by acting more like Palin - attacking gay rights, advancing a rigid, pro-life agenda, attacking Obama as supposedly wanting to eliminate any restrictions on abortion, smearing Obama with tales of his association with Ayers and Wright, etc. - I don't think that would have worked, and in fact it might have hurt. There's a reason that the McCain campaign happily launched that brand of attack through Palin, while trying to keep McCain himself above the fray, and my guess is that it's because their internal polling suggested that those attacks would hurt him with swing voters (not to mention demolishing the public perception that he's not hostile to abortion rights). What better evidence of this than Krauthammer's horror at Palin and everything she represents?

I personally would argue that what hurt McCain the most with swing voters was his overt efforts to appeal to the Buchananite/evangelical wing of the Republican Party. You can still easily find people who lament that they weren't able to vote for the McCain who ran in 2000, and how they wished that guy had been in the race. That guy apparently concluded early on that he couldn't win his party's nomination without making serious concessions to religious and social conservatives, and apparently later concluded (probably correctly) that it was more important to "turn out the base" - have those reliably Republican voters come out and support him on election day - than to try to hold or win over the middle. Krauthammer writes,

McCain thought he could steal from Obama the "change" issue by running a Two Mavericks campaign. A fool's errand from the very beginning.

But he misses the point that the leading factor, and perhaps the only factor, that made McCain a serious contender in the race was the distance he had historically emphasized between his own positions and those of the Republican Party. Whether you believe that to be reality or myth, that McCain - the McCain of 2000 - could legitimately declare himself a candidate of change. The reminted McCain running in 2008 could not. And he lost.
_____________
Update (via lies.com):

Sarah Palin Didn't Know What?

Don't push it....

The recriminations against Palin, launched from within her own party, seems unnecessary and... well, they're pushing past the point of credibility. We're to believe Palin didn't know that Africa was a continent, or that it is comprised of many nations? Palin may have said something that reflected her lifelong disinterest in global affairs, including something that suggested a lack of familiarity with the nation states of Africa, but come on.

What's the point of all of this, anyway? We shouldn't be surprised that many within the McCain camp are eager to point the finger of blame elsewhere for their loss of the election, but Palin's nomination was a pretty obvious Hail Mary. Her addition to the ticket was perhaps a symptom of the campaign's collapse, but not its cause.
_______________
Update: Sometimes when allegations appear to be pushed past the point of credibility it's because they're fake. This leaves open the question, why didn't the (post-election) McCain campaign aggressively deny the claims?

Update 2: Attacks from within the McCain campaign, crossed with opportunistic scamming, crossed with the McCain campaign's failure to rally to Palin's defense, leave the picture very confused. I'm still giving Palin the benefit of the doubt on such issues as supposedly not knowing that Africa is a continent, whatever the source of that allegation.

Fred Hiatt's Last Minute Potshot

Remember Fred Hiatt's execrable column on how everything's coming up roses in Iraq? His editorial page mindlessly regurgitates his views today, in a last minute potshot at Obama. But apparently, this time around nobody wanted to sign the thing.

You Only Have To Fool Enough of the People...

The magic Palin brings to the McCain campaign is her remarkable ability to lie about pretty much everything. Apparently, Matt Drudge dredged up a January interview where Obama describes how carbon emission "cap and trade" works, and now Palin's hard at work lying about it:

• Lie: "You hear Barack Obama talking about bankrupting the coal industry" - Truth: You hear Obama state, "this notion of 'no coal', I think is an illusion" given its huge role in powering the U.S. and even greater role in powering China. He raises the question of how we can use coal without creating greenhouse gases. He observes that under a cap and trade system, if cleaner methods of producing coal energy are not developed, new coal power plants will not be economically viable. It's the person who ignores the carbon tax and builds a dirty coal plant who goes bankrupt, not the coal industry.

  Obviously, under any cap and trade system, sources of energy that produce high levels of carbon emission may lose their viability - that's the point of cap and trade - so the coal industry's focus needs to be on developing cleaner energy technology.

• Lie: "John McCain and I, we will not let that happen to the coal industry." - Truth: John McCain also supports a strong "cap and trade" system for carbon emissions, and if he's telling the truth about that his policies will produce exactly the same outcome as Obama's.

• Lie: Palin's demand to know why the video was "withheld from the electorate" suggesting a conspiracy by the media - Truth: "audio of the interview has been available on the web site of the San Francisco Chronicle since mid-January, when Obama made the comments in an interview with the newspaper's editorial board."

They say that when you've got nothin', you've got nothin' to lose. And I guess, when you've given up your honor, you've got nothin'.

"My First 100 Days Start Today"

Whoever wins tomorrow, I want to hear more than an acceptance speech. I want to hear the President Elect explain that he recognizes the gravity of the problems our country faces, and that he's assembling a team that is going to be working hard over the next two months to put together policy proposals and draft legislation that can be quickly introduced, debated, and enacted after January 20. I want to hear that congressional leaders from both parties will be consulted and kept informed so that nobody can claim surprise and so that, if they wish, their parties can contribute to the effort or prepare their own proposals.

Let's stop G.W.'s slow train wreck, and get things back on track as quickly as possible.

Entrepreneurship and Taxes

Although there are some valid points buried within, it is hard to discern why ABC News deemed this editorial by Michael Malone worthy of publication. Although I agree with him, that entrepreneurship plays an enormous role in the success of our economy, and that laws and government regulations are nonetheless constructed in a manner that is favorable to large businesses, and in many ways unfavorable to small businesses and start-ups. I don't think that it can be reasonably disputed that this has become worse under G.W., who right now is trying to gut antitrust regulations on his way out the door.

But a lot of what he claims is just plain stupid. Platitudes like, "Sen. Barack Obama, being a Democrat, seems to have very little idea of how the economy actually works" and "Sen. John McCain, being a Republican, has a marginally better understanding of the economy and the role of business - but his attention, as usual with GOP elders, is focused upon established companies, which undergird our economy, but do little to create new jobs or new wealth" - as if McCain's expressions about the limits of his understanding of economics are reduced to vapor by his party affiliation, or as if Obama would have an economic epiphany if he switched parties. Facts? Evidence? Who needs those when you have stereotypes and caricatures.

Malone's observations about entrepreneurship are similarly trite,

Meanwhile, established and big companies understandably hate entrepreneurship and will do almost anything to slow the progress of entrepreneurs - like all of those onerous regulations described above. And it has worked: This year has seen almost no high tech company IPOs, traditionally that moment when entrepreneurs gained their freedom and rewarded their teams.

A low level of high tech IPO's can, it seems, only result from start-ups being stifled and crushed by the iron fist of established companies. It has nothing to do with, for example, their number, the economy, or their state of readiness for going public. Malone also forgets how rare it is for a company to go public, and glosses over the fact that, once public, they're well on their way to being one of the "established and big companies" that supposedly "hate entrepreneurship".

These days, the only recourse for a hot start-up company is to sell out to an established company - further consolidating power and wealth. And meanwhile, of course, those older companies find it much more pleasant to buy these new competitors than compete with them.

It's not the only recourse, but obviously when the economy is bad it can become a superior alternative to trying to ride out a recession - not every company is Google. But really, prior to the original dot-com bubble, how many software companies dreamed of an IPO rather than, for example, being purchased by Microsoft? How many V.C.'s, investing in these companies, expect every company in their portfolio to end up going public as opposed to accepting favorable buy-outs from established companies? And sometimes a buyout is the best option for a company that has no viable stand-alone business model. How many start-ups like YouTube can afford to operate at an extremely high cost indefinitely, while their owners struggle to come up with a way to monetize their content? For that matter, what's so bad about being purchased by a major player, whether pre-IPO or post-IPO?

Nothing in McCain's campaign suggests that he understands any of this, or will change the status quo. To look more hip and in-the-know about the tech world, the senator likes to point to the fact that eBay's Meg Whitman is his campaign's advisor on business.

She is, in fact, one of the finest business executives I know, but Meg is not an entrepreneur.

Wait - didn't Malone just tell us that an understanding of the economy can be inferred party affiliation alone? Okay, so even he knows that's bunk. But to attack McCain's association with Meg Whitman, as an attempt to "look more hip" because, although one of the best business executives in the nation who helped elevate eBay from a start-up to a titan, she didn't personally start eBay? Of all of the companies that have rapidly risen from start-up to multi-billion dollar enterprises, how many have done so without bringing in professional management? How many entrepreneurs are their who are considered to be word-class, great, or dare I say even good CEO's once their businesses went public? (I'm only half-joking here - Ford, Jobs (in the latter part of his career), Ellison... Do I need both hands to count them?) For the most part, professional managers don't start businesses, and entrepreneurs reach a point where they need to bring in professional management.

And this suggests that a McCain presidency is not going to come to the aid of America's entrepreneurs - and that the best we can hope for is that it will get out of the way, at least when it comes to taxes. That may work, but it will be a long, slow recovery.

So we've switched back from high tech to the more generic category of "entrepreneur", with a lot of entrepreneurs being decidedly low tech, most employing only themselves, and almost none earning so much as to not benefit from Obama's tax cut. But no, neither candidate is going to give the type of tax relief that would make a typical entrepreneur smile - relief from self-employment taxes, or (something that could benefit all wage earners) eliminating the double- and triple-taxation of income that results from payroll taxes.

Surely here Malone is focusing solely on capital gains taxes, something that would be a pressing issue for a minority of entrepreneurs - those seeking venture capital, with capital gains taxes figuring into the V.C.'s calculation of return on investment, and those giving out stock options and intending to go public. (I'm not overlooking other circumstances where capital gains taxes can arise; but most small businesses aren't actively looking for investors or buyers, and they typically don't fall from the sky.)

As for Obama, leaving aside all of his other proposals for massive social change, the single most frightening plank in his platform is his plan to increase the capital gains tax. If there is one single factor in the U.S. economy that defines the rate of new company creation, it is taxation on capital gains - in particular, the differential between the capital gains and regular tax rates. To understand the long Reagan/Bush/Clinton boom of 1980-2000, you need only look at Reagan's slashing of that differential.

Leaving aside for the moment the "sheer terror" of a 20% capital gains tax, did it occur to Malone that he should actually read Obama's tax proposal before attacking it?

The Obama plan will ... Eliminate capital gains taxes for small businesses, cut corporate taxes for firms that invest and create jobs in the United States, and provide tax credits to reduce the cost of healthcare and to reward investments in innovation.

Truly terrifying.

Assuming that his comments about "corporate greed," etc. indicate that he has no intention of getting rid of Sarbanes-Oxley or any other crippling corporate regulation, then Obama's plan to raise the capital gains tax will all but kill creation of new companies - especially new tech companies - in America.

Yeah, "raising" the capital gains tax to zero will do that.... But let's pretend that Malone has a point - let's pretend that we're entering a business environment where the capital gains tax rate will be 20% instead of fifteen percent:

No new Apples or Facebooks or Twitters, no explosive new industries spinning off endless amounts of money and jobs, no new competitive advantages in the global economy.

That first example is fascinating. Apple, Inc., of course, was founded in 1976. You know, when the maximum capital gains tax rate was 49%. And yet Jobs and Wozniak still started their company? Amazing. Well, they reportedly incorporated on April Fool's day, so maybe they just didn't "get" that they were supposed to wring their hands and fret about their eventual capital gains tax exposure instead of starting their company.

Then Reagan came along and saved the world by cutting capital gains taxes to... fifteen percent? You're joking, right?

The late 1970s and early 1980s brought decreases to the top rates for both ordinary income and capital gains. The top tax rate on ordinary income dropped 20 percentage points to 50 percent in 1982. The capital gains exclusion increased from 50 percent to 60 percent in 1979. As a result of the exclusion and rate cut, capital gains tax rates fell from a maximum of 39.875 percent including an add-on minimum tax, which was widely applicable in 1978, to 20 percent in 1982.

The tax rate differential was eliminated by the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA86) at the same time that top ordinary income tax rates were slashed to 28 percent. When tax rates on ordinary income increased in 1991, the top capital gains tax rate was held fixed at 28 percent. It was subsequently cut to 20 percent in 1997 and to 15 percent in 2003. In comparison, the top tax rate on ordinary income is now 35 percent.

Well there you have it - and don't go believing your lying eyes - we had no boom in tech start-ups, tech IPO's, or flood of so much money into tech businesses that we created a dot-com bubble, because the capital gains tax rate was at or above 20% until 2003. And we've had a boom in tech start-ups, IPO's, etc., since that time because... no, wait, Malone insists we haven't, and that it's a real problem. How is that possible? Maybe he's looking for his answers in the wrong place?

Now about those new Facebooks and Twitters? Those are Malone's best examples of businesses that might not have been started under a 20% capital gains tax, that should go public, or where it would be somehow a tragic loss if they were purchased by an established company? It sounds like Malone is trapped in a time warp - it's 1999, and all a tech company needs to justify a multi-billion dollar valuation and an IPO is a large user base. A business model? A path to profit? An ability to so much as break even? That's so old-school.

Facebook reminds me of the housing bubble. Back when things looked good, people were talking about its being worth $15 billion, and it was spurning proposals for acquisition by companies like Yahoo!, reportedly in the $billion range. Various companies wanted to buy in; Microsoft purchased a 1.6% share of Facebook for $246 million, suggesting a market value in excess of $15 billion. And it tried, and tried, and tried to turn its huge volume of user eyeballs into profit, and the result of those efforts?

As most of Facebook’s growth is outside the US, you’d expect that most of their revenue comes from advertisers targeting international audiences, as well. But that’s not the case. As TechCrunch pointed out months ago, many, many countries generate little to no advertising revenue per user.

* * *

Despite raising probably over half a billion in cash over the last two years, cash reserves are quickly depleting the future may be even more grim for Facebook as the economy slows. Advertising dollars may be one of the first things to be cut. However, as TC points out, Facebook CFO Gideon Yu is in Dubai, looking for more funding for the company.

Facebook grew quickly upon fantastic speculation about its possible future value, spent investor money like a drunken sailor, and is looking at a future where it may not be able to raise enough cash to sustain its operations. So are you thinking, "Why isn't this company going public", or are you thinking, "It needs to be bought out by somebody who has deep pockets and a way to either turn it into a money-maker or to use it to augment their existing money-making operations"?

Twitter is a clever concept, and it has a devoted user base, but it has no obvious path to profitability. Meanwhile, dare I say "established" companies like Facebook have added Twitter-like features to their user interface, to keep those eyeballs on their own sites. And they're having trouble with reliability - with their bandwidth exceeding their capacity - forcing the implementation of policies that may alienate some of their users.

Malone may have a point, that investors paying capital gains taxes at 20% won't invest in companies like pets.com, webvan, eToys.com, kozmo.com, Flooz.com, boo.com, mvp.com, kibu.com, Go.com, Twitter and Facebook, because the marginally lower potential return on investment makes it less desirable to invest in a company that may never develop a viable business model. He may also see companies like Twitter and Facebook as those most likely to turn into corporate giants after an IPO, rather than crashing and burning when they can't even hit a break-even point and run out of money. But let's not pretend that history supports him.

Basicaly, Malone misdirects uninformed attacks at both candidates, gets basic facts wrong, has no clue about the history of the capital gains tax, and seems to know just about nothing about, well, anything. And you know what? If you read the parts of Malone's piece I didn't discuss, you may conclude that I'm being too easy on him.

Premature Obituaries

I'm not personally going to declare a winner until after the election, but it's interesting to read the premature obituaries being penned about the McCain campaign and the Republican Party.

On the right, Clark Stooksbury describes the Republican Party as the "Party of Delusion", calling for an honest assessment of the reasons for the party's failure from inside, but expressing doubts about Republican-oriented conservatives' ability to do so:

A good example is this post from Robert Stacy McCain, who was engaged in some preemptive complaining about media spin of next week’s election. McCain describes the GOP as “the party of low taxes, limited government, traditional values and strong defense.” Only the part about taxes is accurate. the GOP would be more accurately described as the party of tax cuts, debt, cronyism, aggressive war and cultural resentment. The formula that worked for a couple of election cycles, but the party’s chickens have come home to roost.

In the referenced post, McCain also seems to expect that (the other) McCain will lose, but has words of criticism only for the mainstream media. Dan Larison is more in tune with Stooksbury,

Endorsing Obama is a vote of no confidence in the Republican Party, but in a weird way it is also an expression of what is probably utterly misguided hope that the Republicans will learn from the defeat and adjust to new political realities.

He seems to regard it as foolish to vote for Obama to "punish the GOP" out of hope "that there is some small chance that the GOP might change its ways", but presents no alternative. If you concede, as Larison does, that from a conservative standpoint "the GOP has failed so badly that it has made the unthinkable [a vote for Obama] mundane and ordinary", how could you possibly justify a Republican vote? While I recognize that there are third parties, and would not be surprised if Larison ends up voting for a third party candidate, the fact remains that our system is heavily biased against third parties and, in this election and into the foreseeable future, the two dominant parties will remain dominant.

On the left, Paul Krugman speculates on what the Republican Party will look like ("assuming that McCain doesn’t pull an upset"), suggesting,

the GOP that’s left after this election will probably be even further off in right field, even further out of touch with the rest of the country, than before.

If the Republican Party heeds those conservative intellectuals who call for it to reexamine its platform and priorities, that might be avoided. Or not. There's a possibility that if various conservative factions were invited to try to impose their brand of ideological purity on the Republican Party, the ensuing bloodshed would actually harm party unity, or that the bizarre, hybrid consensus version of conservatism emerging from the process would be a cure worse than the disease. Also, the branding issue would remain, as even a fruitful meeting of the party's best minds would have to overcome recent experience - "We're the Republican Party, and this time we really mean all those things we've been telling you we stand for all these years.... Trust us!"

But again, I'm not going to write the party off before it even loses, or after. Similar things could have been said about the Democratic Party many, many times over the past thirty years. They could have been said a year ago. No, actually, they have been - for most of the past year we've been hearing about how this election should be easy for the Democratic Party, how Obama can't "close the deal" and how the Democratic Party's only real strength lies in its ability to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. If Obama weren't ahead in the polls, people would be saying them right now. If Obama loses, well, I don't have to tell you, do I.

When a party seems to be destined to lose, its pessimists expect the party to be reduced to ashes and its optimists expect a phoenix to rise, but a more likely outcome is that the party somehow manages to hobble itself together, keeps its "party faithful" in the fold, and gets the benefit both of time making people forget its past, and the other party's overreaching making them once again seem like the "lesser of two evils" to the block of "swing voters" that ultimately decides elections.

If I were to speculate as to what future path the Republican Party might take that would help keep it in the minority, at risk of trying to get rich by overestimating the intelligence of our nation's people, it would be the path endorsed by Robert Stacy McCain, who offers an unabashed "defense of ignorance". For example, McCain argues,

Palin's honest ignorance of presidential-level issues was held up as evidence that she is, or was, unprepared for the vice-presidency - as if years of studying such issues were in itself qualification for the office. Evidence contradicts this idea.

Even if we assume that "evidence" contradicts the idea that years of serious study of foreign policy better qualify somebody to serve as Vice President, that does not automatically mean that foreign policy ignorance is an equal qualification to foreign policy study, let alone make ignorance a qualification for the job. And it's more than being unschooled - somebody who has lived a lifetime demonstrating disinterested in a particular subject, to the point that in her forties she is described by her supporters as "ignorant", is unlikely to ever achieve proficiency. Is it possible? Sure, but that's a gamble. McCain's observation that Palin is "a very popular and for all I know a very good governor" is fascinating - before urging the party to jump on her bandwagon, might it not make sense for him to learn enough about her that he doesn't have to qualify his endorsement of her record?

Sarah Palin is extraordinarily shrewd and is a natural as a politician. She figured out early on that some people on the McCain campaign are profoundly incompetent (hello, Tucker Bounds) and that other people on the McCain campaign are selfish and arrogant beyond words (you know who you are, sweetheart).

So if you can identify Tucker Bounds - this Tucker Bounds - and Michael Goldfarb - this Michael Goldfarb - as less than the best, you're "shrewd"? That seems like a pretty low bar - as low as the ground level bar set for Palin in the Vice Presidential debate. So really, what's the reason McCain likes (the other) McCain's pick so much?

Sarah's shortcomings on Aug. 29 have been rapidly remedied, and by 2011 could be remedied entirely. Considering that she is the strongest, most viable alternative to Jeb Bush, I would suggest that some of her conservative critics should try to befriend her, and not merely join the sneering snobs.

The only other choice being Jeb Bush, and the Bush brand having been burned so badly by his brother that, despite his having what appear to be far superior credentials, experience, intellect and interest in national and international affairs, you should saddle up the unknown horse and hope for the best?

Truly, J.S. McCain has a limited memory if he believes that the presidential nominee or eventual president can be spotted four years out. The Republican party doesn't have to hope, so much as it should expect new leadership to emerge over the next four years. If Palin turns out to be the best of the bunch, without wishing to caricature her, diminish her accomplishments, or underestimate her political skills and charisma, the party has a lot to worry about... assuming it loses on Tuesday.

But again, the election ain't over 'till it's over.

Bomb Bomb Bomb, Bomb Iran?

Clifford Orwin serves up plenty of nothing in an editorial that refuses to endorse either Obama or McCain, but attempts to attack Obama who Orwin clearly expects to win.

Fact No. 1 is that the new president will face very bad times. Already last spring, when lecturing at a leading U.S. political science department, I learned that a majority of my colleagues there, regardless of their leanings, held that each party should hope the other won this race. And that was before the financial meltdown.

Is Mr. Obama the man for such a dire moment?

Orwin attempts to insulate himself from criticism of this point by refusing to endorse McCain, but the obvious retort is, "Is McCain?" or "Is anybody?" As Orwin notes,

Already last spring, when lecturing at a leading U.S. political science department, I learned that a majority of my colleagues there, regardless of their leanings, held that each party should hope the other won this race. And that was before the financial meltdown.

So what we have here is not really so much a point about Obama or his qualification as Presidency, but Orwin setting himself up to say "I told you so" if things don't quickly come up roses without actually having to put his neck on the chopping block by suggesting how McCain might be more qualified or what a candidate might do to make roses grow from the fertilizer into which G.W. has transformed most aspects of American government.

Look at Mr. Obama's domestic plans. Behind his rhetoric of unity shelter the same old Democratic policies that the two parties have wrangled over for four decades. If that's what Mr. Obama means by Change We Can Believe In, well then Yes We Can.

So Democrats support Democratic policies, and believe that implementing Democratic policies in the place of Republican policies constitutes change? Is Orwin unfamiliar with the meaning of the word, "change"?

Now if he means to argue that the Democratic policies he chooses not to identify are somehow worse than the Republican policies they would replace, I'm eager to hear the argument - to me, that's red meat and, as with pretty much any policy debate, a robust debate can follow with valid points to be made on both sides. But the way Orwin goes about this? It's a cop-out.

Orwin's only specifics come in relation to "foreign policy", by which he apparently means war, war, and only war:

Here, the best news is that not even Mr. Obama's own advisers believe he intends an early withdrawal from Iraq.

Given Orwin's open support for the Iraq war, and ability to find self-vindication in any outcome, it's no surprise that he apparently finds perverse pleasure in the difficulty of ending that war. But what nonsense:

Al-Qaeda has declared again and again (contra Mr. Obama) that the main theatre of its struggle with the United States is not marginal Afghanistan but geopolitically crucial Iraq. Lately, it has been absorbing a royal beating there. Nothing would delight it more than for the Americans to abandon Iraq prematurely to chase Osama bin Laden. Handed a new lease on life in Iraq, it would press on with renewed confidence in Kandahar.

This man is a political scientist who has been writing for years in favor of the Iraq war, yet he is ignorant of Al-Qaeda's actual goals? In their wildest pipe dream, Al-Qaeda doesn't imagine gaining control of Iraq, and it's absurd and dishonest for Orwin to pretend otherwise. Their unambiguous goal has been to drag the U.S. into a perpetual conflict that bankrupts us as a nation, in much the same manner as Russia's war in Afghanistan contributed to its own collapse. Orwin tells us that we're in "an era of shrinking resources" that would force us to forego policies that might improve the lives of Americans - well, you know, that's kind of what Al-Qaeda wants, isn't it.

If Orwin were more honest, or is it more knowledgeable, he would be aware that a Shiite-dominated Iraq is not going to tolerate Al-Qaeda. They'll be vastly less tolerant than Hussein's Sunni government and, despite various specious efforts to tie Hussein to Al-Qaeda, they weren't connected. Odds are they'll be significantly more ruthless in rooting it out, once the U.S. is gone and they are no longer limited by western sensitivities or insistence upon "reconciliation".

Even if we assume that Orwin is engaged in the all-too-typical sleight of hand, conflating Al Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) with Bin Laden's Al Qaeda, really, does he think that the Shiite government is going to make any sort of home in Iraq for an aggressively expansionist, militaristic, fundamentalist brand of Sunni Islam, openly dedicated to its overthrow? Where in the Shiite world is Al-Qaeda tolerated, let alone welcomed? Meanwhile, there's a real price being paid for turning Iraq into a proving ground for AQI and other terrorist groups:

Despite debate over the extent to which AQI fighters are dispersing to new battlefields, there's little question that the organization's methods are increasingly being employed outside of Iraq. The number of suicide attacks, for example, rare in Afghanistan and Pakistan before 9/11, has grown exponentially; according to Pakistan's intelligence service, in the first eight months of this year, there were 28 suicide attacks in Pakistan and 36 in Afghanistan, together claiming over 900 lives. (During that same period, for the first time, suicide bombers killed more people in Pakistan than in Iraq: 471 versus 463.) "Whether or not the actual people migrate, the tactics and techniques are [migrating], and they're going to change the nature of warfare," says [Bruce Hoffman, a counterterrorism expert at Georgetown University]. "The people coming from Iraq have expertise almost across the board in insurgency, from suicide tactics to force-on-force attacks to sophisticated standoff attacks with remote-controlled missiles or rockets to IED types of technologies. It just means that the learning curve for insurgents is now short, and they're able to learn from previous experience and adapt almost immediately, almost in real time."

The disingenuous nature of Orwin's argument is only amplified by his suggestion that Obama's policy in Iraq would "hardly differ from Mr. McCain's". If that's true, what happens is going to happen under either leader.

So far, Orwin's offerings have been pretty generic. At best, he can be said to be criticizing Obama for offering "change" that doesn't involve ideas that are new enough, while refusing to endorse McCain who I guess we are to infer is offering "more of the same". So what's the one point of distinction that Orwin is willing to openly make?

Which brings us to Iran, whose impending nuclear weapons (in tandem with its global terrorist network, advanced ballistic missile systems and proneness to messianic delusions) is the real sum of all fears confronting the next U.S. president. Mr. Obama has declared that a nuclear Iran is absolutely unacceptable to him, and I believe him. I believe that he'll talk just as hard as he can to prevent it, "without preconditions" if necessary. But what will he do once talking has failed?

I guess we are to presuppose that McCain would bypass any attempt to resolve Iran's nuclear ambitious through diplomacy, and would skip straight to the song and dance? If Orwin wants us to go to war with Iran, without bothering with so much as an attempt at diplomacy, he should have the courage and honesty to say so. If not, then we're first going to take steps short of war.

What Orwin appears to offer here is his disappointment that Obama isn't going to advance domestic policies that he prefers (but won't specify), and that neither candidate is likely at this point to endorse a never-ending war in Iraq or expanding that war into Iran.

Making The Most of that Fifteen Minutes....

As if we needed more evidence that John McCain detests our celebrity culture.

I have to hand it to "Joe the Plumber," though. He has apparently discarded his fantasy that he can become the owner of a plumbing business worth $250,000.00, with a comparable annual income, without engaging in the hard work and discipline involved in becoming an actual plumber or saving up a down payment, in favor of making the most of his momentary fame. Paris Hilton, eat your heart out.

The Cost of the Candidates' Health Care Proposals

The Washington post, demonstrating astonishing credulity, tells us about the McCain and Obama health care proposals:

Overall Price Tag

Obama

Says his plan would cost $50 billion to $65 billion a year when all elements are phased in. Money would come from ending tax cuts for people with incomes exceeding $250,000.

McCain

Says his plan would be budget-neutral over 10 years.

How hard would it be to find somebody else's estimates - devoting about five seconds to searching with Google, I came up with this from the Wall Street Journal:

The Tax Policy Center, which is affiliated with the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute, projected the Obama plan would cost $1.6 trillion over 10 years, and the McCain plan would cost $1.3 trillion. Lewin Group had different figures putting the cost at $2.1 trillion for McCain’s plan and $1.2 trillion for Obama.

So if you ask anybody outside of Obama's campaign, you're likely to hear that he's probably (at best) halving the likely cost, and if you ask anybody outside of McCain's campaign you're likely to get a "He's claiming what?!"

Not that I'm suggesting that you shouldn't take political candidates at their word, but... No, wait, that's exactly what I'm suggesting.

Now That's Desperation....

You're not terrified that McCain won't win the election? Then perhaps you would like a nice tall glass of Kool-Aid. I'm sure you've already encountered the breathless accusation that Obama is a socialist, backed up by mendacious distortions of a comment he made to "Joe the Plumber" and tendentious interpretations of a segment from a seven-year-old radio call-in show.

What? You're not shivering in your boots? Well, then, Pat Buchanan is racing to the rescue with an effort so frantic, it makes Chicken Little look like a Zen Master. Border security? None of that - the border with Mexico will be wide open, and all illegal immigrants will be given amnesty. Taxes will be raised on the wealthiest 5% of Americans, in order to "redistribute" it to the bottom 40%. He'll somehow magically rewrite the Constitution, such that homosexuals have equal rights in all areas of life (the horror), affirmative action can be instituted based on quotas, and we'll have something just shy of forced abortions in every state ("America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth"). Oh yes - and outrageous deficit spending that didn't get in the way of Buchanan's endorsement of G.W. back in 2004? It's once again a valid issue.

I hope you've drained your Kool-aid glass and are ready for your next helping, courtesy of Steven Calabresi in the Wall Street Journal. You may be thinking, "Republicans have appointed federal judges for twenty of the past twenty-eight years, and have pretty solid majorities throughout the federal judicial system, including the Supreme Court." But no - Obama will be able to appoint two - count them, two - judges to "the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit," G.W. having personally named a "only four". This will apparently cause the world to end. Presenting one of the most bizarre extrapolations I've heard to date of the Obama radio interview, Calabresi writes,

[Obama] he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office.

It does? How?

Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare?

Well, there's no evidence that he has proposed or endorsed any such amendments, and even somebody whose knowledge of the Constitution barely meets the level of a high school civics class knows that the President cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution. (And anybody with a whit of sense knows that a "right to welfare" amendment would have a zero percent chance of passing.) But as you know, when you're trying to create hysteria you need not let facts or common sense get in the way.

Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth?

That's right, Steve... Keep pouring the Kool-Aid....

If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Ooh - let's not forget open borders and amnesty for all illegal aliens! And everybody will be forced to learn a second language!

But what about the war on terror? Buchanan doesn't mention Iraq, perhaps because he doesn't want to remind people that he's an isolotionist who opposes the entire Iraq venture. (Like deficits, the Iraq war also didn't stop Buchanan from endorsing Bush over Kerry.) And apparently (surprisingly?) Calabresi doesn't anticipate a Constitutional amendment that will make it illegal for us to fight wars against our enemies.

But don't worry - the WSJ is still serving up the Kool-Aid. Here's Pete Du Pont: It seems certain that "The U.S. military will withdraw from Iraq quickly and substantially, regardless of conditions on the ground or the obvious consequence of emboldening terrorists there and around the globe." You know, because Obama has made clear that he will consider conditions on the ground and is committed to focusing on the real threats to our nation's security around the world. When you write for the WSJ, it seems, every day is "opposites day".

It also "seems clear" that we'll become economic isolationists (is he trying to calm Pat Buchanan down), labor unions will be stronger, there will be more federal regulation (probably foisted on us by radical left-wingers like Alan Greenspan), we'll be "Europeanized" (perhaps there will even be a law that makes us give our kids Europeanized names like "Pierre") with "nationalized health care, Kyoto-like global-warming policies, and increased education regulation and spending" (something no conservative President would ever do, right?), and:

Free speech will be curtailed through the reimposition of the Fairness Doctrine to limit the conservative talk radio that so irritates the liberal establishment.

With the evidence in support of that being... er, being... No, stop thinking and start fearing. (And they say that the WSJ editorial page is full of drek - well, they've showed you now, haven't they.)

So much to be afraid of... I can barely stop shaking in my boots. It makes me long for the good old days, when I was "only" supposed to be terrified of Obama because he's secretly Muslim and is "palling around with terrorists".

Where'd The Other McCain Go?

Remember John McCain when he was funny, genial, collegial, able to make fun of himself? Whether you think that was a carefully cultivated image or a reality lost to desperation as his campaign flounders, you actually don't have to look back very far. The old John McCain showed up a couple of weeks ago at the Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner.

If that John McCain were the one running for office, I suspect he would be doing better in the polls.

Kathleen Parker: If Only McCain Were Less (or More?) Like Jörg Haider....

In a column that is insulting of men in general, and particularly of John McCain, Kathleen Parker can find only one explanation for John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin as his running mate - and she does emphasize "mate":

One does not have to be a psychoanalyst to reckon that McCain was smitten. By no means am I suggesting anything untoward between McCain and his running mate. Palin is a governor, after all. She does have an executive résumé, if a thin one. And she's a natural politician who connects with people.

But there can be no denying that McCain's selection of her over others far more qualified -- and his mind-boggling lack of attention to details that matter -- suggests other factors at work. His judgment may have been clouded by . . . what?

* * *

As my husband observed early on, McCain the mortal couldn't mind having an attractive woman all but singing arias to his greatness. Cameras frequently capture McCain beaming like a gold-starred schoolboy while Palin tells crowds that he is "exactly the kind of man I want as commander in chief." This, notes Draper, "seemed to confer not only valor but virility on a 72-year-old politician who only weeks ago barely registered with the party faithful."

You know, just maybe his mind was "clouded" by advisors who kept harping on the deficiencies of the other candidates on his short list, as contrasted with a couple who waxed poetic about how Palin would excite "the base". (No, I'm not using the term "excite" in the same sense as Parker.)

(Meanwhile, in Austria....)

Of All The Things To Obsess About....

Sarah's song?

Seriously, it seems silly, but can you actually imagine a candidate, male or female, running for national office in a wardrobe by JCPenney? With a Borics haircut? And wearing the same "nice clothes" for multiple pubic appearances, perhaps even within the same two week period? The horror....

I will grant, it's easier for a man to get away with wearing the same suit more than once in two weeks. As long as it's sufficiently generic that nobody will notice. (Even then it's probably at least $1,500 - $5,000 worth of "generic", before we start adding in the cost of the shirt, shoes, tie and accessories.) There's a different standard for women, in no small part resulting from the fact that women's clothes are (and are expected to be) less generic.

Had Palin not been professionally dressed, coiffed and polished, that would have been the focus of news stories, rumors, and jokes. Now, having been found to have expended quite a lot of RNC money on her appearance, she risks the "John Edwards" treatment. And while the McCain campaign's defense of her,

With all the important issues facing the country right now, it's remarkable that we're spending time talking about pantsuits and blouses. It was always the intent that the clothing go to a charitable purpose after the campaign.

is weakened by its silence in relation to similar non-scandals directed at candidates from the other side of the aisle and its celebrity ads aimed at Obama, they're right.

Now let's get back to the real issues. Like falsely accusing our political opponents of being "socialists" and of "palling around with terrorists", or of having a secret plan to eviscerate Medicare.

Credit Where Credit Is Due

Given the tendency to try to hold candidates responsible for the worst behavior of their supporters, we should remember that the larger body of supporters is often opposed (and perhaps appalled) by some of that behavior.

Waiting for the Second Coming... of Reagan?

Michael Gerson laments the collapse of John McCain's campaign, in a piece that is 80% of the way to reading like a parody.

For all their talk about respecting the constraints of reality, conservatives generally hold to the great man theory of history. It is leftists who embrace economic determinism. Conservatives read biographies of Winston Churchill and wait in constant expectation for the second coming of Ronald Reagan. Charisma and truth, in this view, can always overwhelm material conditions.

And this often leads to the small man theory of electoral setbacks. A losing Republican is not merely unfortunate; he must be incompetent, politically blind, and betrayed by his bumbling underlings. If he is not a winner, he is a fool.

This reminds me a bit of the evolution I've seen in a lot of idealistic people who become fascinated with politics at too young an age. The first time he votes, he's backing the great leader of the best party - the man who is going to save the country. A few elections later he's voting for "the lesser of two evils" and hoping that a great man emerges for the next election. A few elections after that, and he's realized that you have only two choices - picking "the lesser of two evils" or not voting. The candidates are human, and humans are flawed. The parties are flawed. The system is flawed. And you gotta live with it.

I think both parties try to present their presidential candidates as a "great man", and many voters happily oblige them by buying into a mindset that their candidate is going to fix the world, while the opposing candidate is going to destroy it (metaphorically, and sometimes perhaps literally, speaking). More sophisticated voters are apt to recognize that while great leaders can transform a nation, no matter what the political parties say, it's unlikely that they're voting for a great leader. They're also apt to note, perhaps particularly if they're conservative, that a great leader out to transform a country can take things in the wrong direction. The opposing party is often happy to emphasize that point - vote for Barry Goldwater and... boom!

Meanwhile, how many attacks have been launched on Obama's supporters for being a "cult of personality", entranced by the man but ignorant of his policies? For goodness sake, McCain even had a "second coming" ad about Obama's rise. Now we're to believe that this conduct, attributed to Obama's supporters, represents their acting like conservatives?

As for "leftists" embracing "economic determinism", it's almost as if Gerson is trying to pick marxist terms out of Wikipedia to create... I'm not sure what. Which "leftists" believe that economics are at the root of all political issues or problems? You point out, "It's the economy, stupid", and suddenly you're a marxist? Then what of Gerson's own argument:

The diverging political fortunes of Barack Obama and McCain can be traced to a single moment. In the middle of September, the net favorable rating for each candidate was about the same. By Oct. 7, Obama was ahead on this measure by about 16 points. Did McCain suddenly become a stumbling failure? No, the world suddenly went into an economic slide.

Clearly, then, you can be something other than a "leftist" and recognize the role - at times the central role - of economic factors in political events and world history. You might even enjoy talking about this - for example, crediting Reagan with winning the cold war by bankrupting the USSR. And what does Gerson believe that "Club for Growth"-type tax policies are about, but the idea that you can create an economic circumstance that forces a political outcome. What of the cult of privatization, ignoring the contexts that markets create efficiencies in favor of a delusional mantra that private entities will always perform better than public entities?

No, really, not all conservatives believe in "the great man theory of history", let alone see it as desirable. There are almost no actual marxists in the United States, and none that I'm aware of with any political influence. And both parties correctly see that economics play a role, often a significant role, in politics - while simultaneously avoiding any endorsement of Marxist theory. Go figure.

Why did Gerson attempt to frame the election as a competition between hero-worshiping "conservatives" and marxist "leftists"? Because:

While America remains a center-right country, this may well be a Marxist election in which economic realities are determining the political superstructure.

Earth to Gerson: Marxists don't play any discernible role in American politics, and neither they nor their theories win elections in center-right countries.

I was amused by Gerson's reaction to other pundits, as he complains about their advice to McCain:

If only the candidate would fire his entire campaign staff and travel the country in a used Yugo, speaking in the parking lots of 7-11s, the gap would be closed. If only the candidate would buy three hours in prime time and give a bold, historic speech (which has been helpfully sent under separate cover), the entire election would be turned around. If only the candidate would finally highlight his opponent's ties to Colombian drug cartels, the illuminati and the British royal family -- or perhaps abandon all this suicidal negativity -- the election could certainly be won. And yes, above all, the candidate must be himself.

I'm not sure who the first target is, but the "buy airtime" comment seems to be about Kristol, and the "smear, baby smear" comment seems to be about Krauthammer. (When even Michael Gerson recognizes your advice as bad....)

Gerson is also much to quick to blame the economy for McCain's problems at the poll. It's been very important, certainly, but there's a lot more to McCain's problem.

In the middle of September, the net favorable rating for each candidate was about the same. By Oct. 7, Obama was ahead on this measure by about 16 points.

I think McCain's problems started with his leading campaign tactic - one Gerson continues to endorse:

But the McCain campaign also proved itself capable of constructing an effective narrative: Obama as lightweight celebrity, McCain as maverick reformer. Until history intervened.

Political junkies forget that, although political buzz and ads can have a significant impression on the voting public, for many people the election doesn't begin until after the political conventions. McCain ran a pre-debate campaign that was largely premised on the notion that, "I'm so much better than him, all I should have to do to win is list my name on the ballot." Then he picked Gov. Palin as his running mate and enjoyed a brief surge in the polls. Then she was interviewed by Charlie Gibson, and independent voters started to shift in large numbers from McCain to Obama. By September 17, he had lost his lead. A couple of days later, we met Henry Paulson's $750 billion bailout plan. McCain was down in the polls, but only by a couple of points - within the margin of error.

Following the onset of the crisis, McCain was left with flawed options. He reasonably chose to work for a responsible bailout while hoping the markets would stabilize quickly.

McCain's slide in the polls was continuing. As the nation was introduced to the financial crisis, McCain engaged in some obvious grandstanding, noisily "suspending" his campaign to feign taking leadership of negotiations for a bail-out package. Except he didn't really suspend his campaign, didn't really contribute to the debate over the first bail-out proposal, and came across as trying to grab headlines to obscure his diminishing poll numbers.

Then, on September 26, Obama stood on the same stage as McCain and managed to not only hold his own, but in many ways to appear more presidential than McCain. McCain's "lightweight celebrity" theme crashed and burned and his campaign seemed to lose focus. Recall at this moment that Gerson's complaint is not that McCain's standing in the polls slipped, but that his favorables slipped. The performance of the markets played a part in the erosion of his support, but I suspect that the slide in his favorables had much more to do with his grandstanding on the fiscal crisis, his debate performance as contrasted with Obama's, and the fact that attacks that may well have been fair if raised at a different time or in a different manner seemed small, mean-spirited and misplaced within the context of a major financial crisis - they seemed timed and constructed to try to overcome a slide in the polls. How much of that is perception and how much is reality? It doesn't matter - that perception caused McCain's favorables to slide.

(Can anyone doubt that the past political association of McCain with a right-wing terrorist would attract some attention?)

Letterman had fun with that one.

Gerson's column seems to have three goals: Reinvigorate the failed "Obama's a lightweight celebrity" theme;¹ reinvent McCain as something "close enough" to a great man and second coming of Reagan; and to try to remove the economy and the financial crisis as bona fide election issues. Is it just me, or did he fail on all counts?
________________
1. Gerson attacks Obama, claiming,

His only recent accomplishment has been to say questionable things in the debates - attacking Republicans and capitalism for a credit meltdown congressional Democrats helped to cause, blaming America for Iran's nuclear ambitions, talking piously about genocide prevention when his own early Iraq policies might have resulted in genocide - all while sounding supremely reassuring and presidential.

The first? That's what passes, in this nation, as "good politics". As Gerson concedes, the government's contribution to the meltdown was bipartisan in nature, but this is the season for finger-pointing. The second, a silly exaggeration by Gerson. The third? What's Gerson smoking?

Palin's Shameful Obstructionism Continues

Yes, we get it. You have a lot to hide....

The office of the Republican vice-presidential nominee has quoted prices as high as $15 million for copies of state e-mails requested by news organizations and citizens. No matter what the price, most of the e-mails of Palin, her senior staff and other state employees won't be made public until at least several weeks after the Nov. 4 presidential election, her office told msnbc.com on Thursday

Oh yes.... that doesn't include copying costs and no electronic copies will be provided - in support of the nation's lumber industry, you'll be receiving ream after ream of electronic documents printed out on paper.