Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Articles of Mass Distraction

Issues vs. Character: Imagine you're in John McCain's $500 shoes. Less than a month from election day, polls tell you the discouraging news. You are losing to Barack Obama. In your heart, you know you're right. Tough on foreign policy. Faith in a free market system. Cut taxes. Lower spending. Country first. All ingredients for a successful recipe to win the White House in normal times. But, these are not normal times. Less than a third of the voters care Iran is building nuclear warheads. Most fear what's happening to their pocket books. The me first is paramount as fears of a prolonged recession begin strangling the life blood of our souls. So, for the umpteenth time, you succumb to your advisers and develop an offensive strategy that changes the subject from how to address the nation's economic problems to planting seeds of doubt in the character of your opponent. Against your better judgment, you and your surrogates go for the jugular. McCain delivered a speech Monday asking "Who is Barack Obama?" He elaborated: "Whatever the question, whatever the issue, there's always a back story with Sen. Obama... My opponent's touchiness every time he is questioned about his record should only make us more concerned." McCain then repeated the disputed claim Obama supports raising taxes for persons with $42,000 annual income. McCain's running mate Gov. Sarah Palin has taken a more direct attack by saying Obama "pals around with known terrorists" in reference to Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers whose underground group bombed the Pentagon when Obama was 8 years old. Now, Palin is drawing large crowds which are terrific for television audiences appearances but are misleading as hell. She's appearing only before the basest of the Republican base and providing them with red meat and absolutely no effort to win over undecided voters who will decide the outcome of the election. The Obama campaign has countered attack ads with some of their own while Obama himself has taken a higher road. "I can't imagine talking about anything more important than the economic crises," he said on the campaign trail in North Carolina Monday.

Voter Backlash? The McCain swiftboating approach could work as it did four years ago for George Bush against John Kerry. Hillary Clinton nearly beat Obama late in the primary campaign with a series of negative ads. Clinton started too late and McCain could experience the same results. Here's the canard: Voters tell pollsters they despise negative campaigning. Political pols know they work and have the data to prove it. But, these are not normal times. Imagine the serious voter trying to decide upon the candidates and hear no solutions to their problems but prattle about the evils of the other guy. There is considerable speculation that McCain will carry his personal attack message into tonight's debate. That should make an entertaining evening but is it too risky even for such an addicted gambler as McCain?

My Take: Both McCain and Obama share the same problem of becoming too specific on how to solve the economic crises. The groundwork is set in concrete with the $700 billion rescue bill signed into law last Friday by President Bush. They both are stuck with it and perhaps even Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson administering it. Remember President Clinton campaigned on a specific economic program in 1992. After looking at the books, he had to ditch his program and go a different route after taking office. Still, both candidates need to weigh in on the economic crises and not Obama's guilt by association relationship with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers and McCain's hot temperament and involvement in the Keating savings and loan scandal. I want to hear more on the policy differences in Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. More details on tax cuts and tax increases. More on differences in their health care reforms. More on what areas to cut spending. More on energy and clean air proposals. More on keeping Social Security solvent. More on the criteria needed for appointment of new judges to the Supreme Court. In short, cut the crap and go for the gold.

No comments: