POLITICS JULY 31, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
Sergeant Schmidt. The Artillery Shell. The Bullet.
Even in the hyper-competitive world of political media strategists--a line of work that tends to reward the studied deployment of affectation and outsized personality--Steve Schmidt, the tough-talking, shaven-headed, 37-year old former high school tight end from North Plainfield, New Jersey, who recently emerged from a scrum among John McCain's inner circle to become the head of day-to-day operations, arrived on the national stage trailing more colorful nicknames than most.
"He figured out pretty quickly that [a martial] reputation would work to his professional benefit," Dan Schnur, McCain's communications director in 2000, recently told me. "When he came on to the Schwarzenegger [2006 gubernatorial] campaign, I told his junior staffers: If you show up late to a meeting, Steve will waterboard you."
Schmidt's most recent promotion was announced on July 2. Campaign manager Rick Davis's duties were scaled back to fundraising, searching for a v.p., and making preparations for the national convention, while Schmidt was dispatched to the campaign's Arlington, Virginia, headquarters, where he assumed "full operational control." In Republican circles it was hailed as a move in the right direction; the question was whether it had come too late.
The campaign clearly needed a take-no-shit disciplinarian to whip the operation--and the message--into shape after it failed to capitalize on a four-month head start in the general election. And in the news accounts that followed the switch, the relatively unknown Schmidt was defined mostly by his nicknames: Sergeant Schmidt, the Artillery Shell, the Bullet. Still, none of these stuck quite as firmly--or have raised more red flags among Democrats--as the epithet that now precedes his name more than any other: "Rove protégé."
The day after Schmidt's promotion, The New York Times reported that he had "worked closely with Rove" in the White House, where he served as deputy assistant to the president and counselor to the vice president after the '04 election, and cited "associates" saying a McCain victory in November would burnish Rove's legacy. Schmidt was also a sometime attendee of Rove's exclusive "breakfast club," where much of the communications strategy for Bush's re-election campaign was plotted out. And it was Rove who nicknamed him the Bullet.
Being labeled a Rove protégé summons all kinds of associations in the minds of American voters--chief among them, a fundamentally divisive political strategy geared toward mobilizing the base in the service of a socially conservative agenda. But that's not Schmidt. Mark McKinnon, the former Bush adman who opted to leave the McCain campaign rather than produce ads attacking Obama, calls Rove "a pure party guy. … He uniquely understands the history and physics of the Republican Party," whereas Schmidt is "a pure message machine. He came up as a professional through the press side of the business." John Weaver, a former top adviser to McCain, was less circumspect, "Steve's no more a Karl Rove protégé than I run the Johnson Space Center."
Schmidt has certainly indulged in lowly Rove-like tactics over the years. Like the time, back in 1996, when he sent out 60,000 "sex surveys" that attempted to portray then-Congressman Tim Roemer as someone who was using health surveys to pry into the sex lives of adolescents. Schmidt has already proved in this campaign that he's not above that kind of behavior. But he also has a parallel history of stressing decidedly moderate positions, and eschewing the dictates of Rove's permanent conservative majority pipe dream. If his sudden ascendancy proves anything, it is that the Republican Party's fortunes have changed so dramatically that it can no longer afford to have grand ideologues run its campaigns, but must instead turn to scrappier tacticians like Schmidt.
"We were Clinton-philes," says Nicolle Wallace, the former White House communications director who hired Schmidt to run rapid response for the Bush-Cheney campaign in '04. "On the first day I had that job, I played The War Room. We were huge fans of what [the Clinton team] did in '92, and we specifically tried to emulate and improve upon it in 2004." Wallace credits James Carville--known to his troops at the time as the "field marshal"--along with Paul Begala and George Stephanopoulos with "creating this whole movement of rapid response. They never complained about their coverage; they were never the victim of it. And I think that was a hallmark of '04--we drove the debate, and we were on the offense."
Schmidt was tasked with carrying out a directive posted to Wallace's office door--"It's the Hypocrisy, Stupid"--that carried a decidedly more negative bent than the famous Carville adage. And when Kerry slipped--as when he tortuously explained that he "actually did vote for the $87 billion before [he] voted against it"--Schmidt immediately blasted out hundreds of e-mail alerts to surrogates, the press, and also McKinnon, who would shape the talking point into a devastating television ad.
After the 2004 election, in addition to serving as Dick Cheney's director of communications, Schmidt shepherded Justices Roberts and Alito through their confirmation hearings (but he was not involved, as Schmidt watchers are quick to point out, in Harriet Miers' abortive bid). He left the White House to work at the lobbying and communications firm Mercury Public Affairs in northern California, but, in January 2006, Schmidt was persuaded by Maria Shriver to run her battered husband's re-election campaign.
When Schmidt came on, California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger was a chastened man. Two months earlier, he had tried to ram through a package of ballot initiatives that California voters summarily rejected, his approval ratings were hovering in the 30s, and his campaign operation was severely underfunded. But working alongside Shriver and Susan Kennedy--the Governor's Democratic chief of staff--Schmidt was instrumental in guiding the governor's landslide victory during a particularly bad election cycle for Republicans. And he was able to do it, in no small part, by siphoning off large swaths of moderates and Democrats. Schmidt set up a mini-war room that operated from 4 a.m. to midnight pushing a centrist message on issues like immigration, clean energy, and the minimum wage. And he gave the "Governator" an image overhaul to match the platform. "No more driving around in the Hummer," he told a reporter at the time. "No more … running around and explosions and fireworks."
Schmidt counts the campaign as one of the highlights of his career, and one reason might be that his personal politics, as colleagues suggest, overlap with Schwarzenegger's. Matthew Dowd, the chief strategist for the California governor's re-election campaign, told me that Schmidt isn't always "comfortable with the whole social conservative aspect of the party. He's a big patriot and has a big respect for the military--his wife was a navy nurse--but being judgmental and moralistic, that's just not his cup of tea." Dowd recalls having long conversations with Schmidt, whose sister is gay, over cigars in Schmidt's backyard "about civil unions and gay marriage, where he wasn't necessarily in lockstep with the Republican Party."
Weaver describes Schmidt as "hardly a right-wing reactionary guy" and counts him among a corps of Republican operatives in their late 30s and early 40s--most of whom have served in the Bush White House--who hope to chart a less divisive course for the party in the coming years. Still, there's been no indication that Schmidt, whom Mark McKinnon swears is a "total marshmallow … [and] a really sweet guy," struggles with separating his personal politics from the task at hand.
Back in '04, for instance, Schmidt told an L.A. Times reporter that "every American, including the president ... believes John Kerry's service in Vietnam was admirable. But what's most striking is that in order to talk about John Kerry's accomplishments, they've had to go back for 35 years." Four years later, when Wesley Clark questioned the relevance of McCain's wartime service in strikingly similar terms, Schmidt wasted no time hammering him for it.
Hypocritical? Sure. But it isn't Steve Schmidt's job to be consistent from one election year to the next. And in late 2006, as Republicans who'd taken note of the work he'd done on Schwarzenegger's campaign were gearing up for the '08 election, Schmidt pretty much had his pick.
"Romney sent him an antique chair with a note that said something like, 'Hope to have you sitting at the head table,'" Weaver recalled. Giuliani was also pursuing him, but "we got Steve, and Steve got to keep the chair."
When Schmidt signed on with McCain in December 2006, the campaign was flush with money, and the polls had him beating Democratic frontrunner Hillary Clinton by double digits. Weaver said Schmidt was attracted to McCain's "iconoclasm" and "robust foreign policy." Schmidt had also been lured to the campaign by a number of close friends, including his partners at Mercury Public Affairs: Brian Jones (a former Bush operative who was brought on as McCain's communications director and Schmidt's best friend since he was eight years old) and Terry Nelson (Bush's political director in '04 and a friend of Schmidt's since 1996).
So, when Nelson quit as campaign manager last July--quickly followed out the door by Weaver, Jones, and a number of others with whom he'd developed close relationships over the years--Schmidt wasn't sure what he should do next. The campaign was broke and trailing badly, and Schmidt had been working for free.
"His intention was just to take calls from the senator and give him whatever advice that he asked for," Weaver recalls. "But he had grown fond of John and vice versa, and after we left, there was a vacuum. … Instead of talking to me 20 times a day, [McCain] was talking to Steve 20 times a day. Like any combatant, he got called back to duty. And that's how it evolved into what it is today."
"I describe the Bush operation as being kind of like the British Royal Navy," McKinnon told me. "And the McCain campaign is sort of like Pirates of the Caribbean.
"Steve's bringing a little bit of discipline from the Royal Navy operation."
But it takes more than one man to right a ship--and Schmidt is still struggling to control the campaign and its famously unmanageable candidate. Keeping everyone on message, as Schnur points out, is "the kind of thing that takes a little time to institutionalize." Last week, as the junior senator from Illinois was winning plaudits overseas, McCain was reduced to volleying shots at his opponent from a town-hall style meeting in Rochester, New Hampshire, and a supermarket aisle in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. The Temple of Hercules in Amman it was not.
"Machiavelli and Sun Tzu working in tandem," Schnur says, "couldn't have put together a week for John McCain that would have rivaled the favorable coverage that Obama's getting from his foreign tour." Schmidt at least succeeded in occasionally steering the conversation to coverage about the coverage--in one instance, by posting a video on the campaign's website called "Obama Love" that ended up getting a good amount of chuckling press. It's tactics like these that--consciously or not--get a Katie Couric to self-deprecatingly remark on the media blitz in which she's implicated, as an "Obamathon."
Just as he did within days of the campaign's first implosion last summer--when he came up with the then-counterintuitive and ultimately revitalizing idea of sending McCain out on surge-supporting "No Surrender Tour"--Schmidt has once again placed his candidate in town hall-style settings. And under Schmidt's direction the overall message--"Senator Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign"--has been much more aggressive, for better or for worse.
McCain has managed to remain within five points of Obama's lead, and there's reportedly a debate occurring within the campaign about how much more negative the message should get. Though it should be of little consolation to Democrats, whatever they choose will have more to do with desperation than grand dreams of ideological realignment. Schmidt may not think exactly like Rove, his supposed mentor, but it will be instructive to see if he'll feel overwhelming pressure to act like him.
Laurence Lowe is a researcher-reporter at GQ and a senior editor at Triple Canopy. His work has also appeared in The New York Times and n+1.
29 comments
McCain could turn this around, but he'll have to be bold, in three areas. First, he has to hit Obama hard on his lies about the surge (John Dickerson in Slate has Obama's number) and his asinine posturing about the absurdity of a "conditions-based" timetable (see Kissinger's oped today in WaPo for a good takedown). Second, McCain has to pick two or three populist economic issues and ride those hard. Pelosi and Obama's bizarre and deeply un-progressive support for the ethanol debacle and opposition to domestic drilling are a fat and obvious target; the other obvious target is the Wall Street bailout at Main Street's expense. McCain as Teddy Roosevelt progressive would be especially powerful here. Finally, McCain needs to take a real risk with his VP selection and show us a fresh face that puts to rest the image of the GOP as reactionary white Beltway types. Arnold can't run, but Bloomberg can. McCain-Bloomberg would pick off most of those 200,000 Dade-Broward FL and the hundreds of thousands of other east coast nat-sec'y Dems who voted for Gore in '00 and Bush in 2004. He'd lock down FL and probably win PA, perhaps OH as well. Bottom line, Obama is far weaker than he now appears and McCain is much stronger than he now appears. This election will be as close as '76 was.
- teplukhin2you
August 1, 2008 at 2:45am
The republicans have no programs beyond continuing the Bush legacy. They have won twice by scaring the American voter; this is the pillar of their campaign. The democrats can defeat this by empasizing the lies and partial truths and question whether the public wants to continue a lier as president. Tying MCCain to the Bush failures is their key. McCain as to be shown up as an angry, simpleminded vacillating old man still stuck in Vietnam. Obama has to stick to the high road without letting the repubs get away with low road, lying tactics. The repairs needed to save the US from the Bush agenda have to be clarified and the sacrifices required must be made as clear as possible. The issues between the two parties are as important as ever in history and the voters must be offerred a clear choice. If stupidity and bigotry win in the end it should be clear just as the stolen election of 2000 has become clearer.
- oxheadone
August 1, 2008 at 4:21am
McCain - Bloomberg? Brilliant.
- r-ennis
August 1, 2008 at 11:01am
The tactics now employed by the McCain campaign are right out of the Karl Rove play book...they will try to win a third Bush term by again scaring people about the Dem candidate and portray him as EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what he really is. He's an "elitist", instead of the man of the people he really is. He's not the candidate with 10 homes and 100 million in the bank! The whining and bashing of Obama going on with the full approval and participation of old McLeatherneck is disgusting and pathetic...but it's gaining footing in the Corporate media the last couple of days... The theme on cable news now is that it's Obama who's "playing the race-card" even though he's avoided that line of attack during his cleanly run campaign and tried to focus on the real issues that face this country...and when he tries to fight back against the McC attacks HE'S THE ONE WHO'S GOING NEGATIVE! THE STUPID HURTS!!!!!
- wagonjak
August 1, 2008 at 12:07pm
tep, I doubt that this year will be like 1976. Carter was no where near as popular as Obama is now. But, in my bones, I tend to agree with you about apparent vs actual strengths of Obama and McCain. If McCain's campaign can get its s**t together by Labor Day, I see him (McCain) winning by one to two percent. I've thought this way for months and all the image polishing Obama could possibly do won't make up for a weak agenda, which he has.
- tomeg
August 1, 2008 at 12:37pm
Mccain cant run on his policy choices so he turn to lies and obfuscation.Deja vu anyone.the surge has magically tamped down violence just before the election,{dont forget the millions in bribes}yet the purpose of the surge was political reconciliation and stability was it not?Nobody ever doubted if we flooded Iraq with troops it would decrease violence but for how long and to what effect.We dont have the troops to continue this sharade for long {till after the election,since bush always said he was going to leave it on the next president to clean up}and we let al queda in afganistan grow unfettered.The republican have left this world more dangerous than ever and john mccains only hope is to take the focus off them and put it squarely on obama.Lie, cheat and steal seem to be their only strategic offence.
- truthynesslover
August 1, 2008 at 1:39pm
Where's the humor? If McCain were to call Obama a "whippersnapper", I'd bet that he would shoot way up in the polls. Make Obama a laughingstock. Choose negative but humorous words that will really stick to Obama and get America laughing, while glorifying McCain. Go on Saturday Night Live, have the fake Obama make a platitudinous speech, and have the real McCain say: "Who is this bright young whippersnapper from Harvard, and why does he think that he should be President? I've been practicing being President for 200 years." And all the while, let the 527s do there thing.
- ironist
August 1, 2008 at 1:51pm
McCain is much stronger than he now appears? So that's why he's performed so abysmally these past two weeks, because he's actually stronger than he appears?
- pasacevalo
August 1, 2008 at 5:57pm
Obama is becoming McCain on every issue, every one. He's morphing into a Republican. Imagine that! A great ad would show Obama's image (face) turning/morphing into McCain's, with an overlay of text showing his issue flip-flops to the Republican stance. What a visual that would be. Unforgettable.
- animorph
August 2, 2008 at 10:30am
We out here in middle class America hope that the real Mc Cain will surface soon in this election and at the right time. He is a dangerous man and he is way past his time. I liked Mc Cain very much and once sat with a Democrat friend, a Federal court Judge over a bottle of wine and we decided that, "THAT" John Mc Cain might be the only one who could bring our country together. I have voted Democrat, Republican and Nader in my lifetime. I am voting for Senator Obama as he is the best man to lead my country. That empty suit comment? Mc Cain's is hanging in downtown Hanoi in a musem and much of his sharpness was lost in the early 2000's it is terrifying to imagine him in the Oval office. Got to go off to the Obama website and volunteer right NOW
- Cherie Clark
August 2, 2008 at 10:43am
Obama has that “new boyfriend” syndrome. Lots of excitement and he looked damn near perfect in those early days. You know, when you get to project on him all those traits you’re looking for beyond cute and smart - character, depth, humor, a moral center. As time goes on, he’s no longer the shiny new thing. He disses your best friend (behind her back of course), you begin to see his smarminess when he sucks up to your boss and he just doesn’t fit in or get your family’s zany, noisy humor - and he’s stopped trying. The ultimate deal breaker - you learn that he’ll do or say anything to get what he wants. You know the type - you’ve dated him or perhaps it’s your daughter or a good friend. He just never lived up to the promise of those first, early days. Best to heed the advice you’ve given or gotten - Lose him quick and move on.
- s. valenti
August 2, 2008 at 11:05am
It seems that a lot of red states like Montana, North and South Dakota, etc. have only one representative in the house - and often that person is a democrat. Given that a 269-269 electoral tie is not likely, but very possible, shouldn't these states pass a law - or at least require their congressional representative to sign a pledge promising to cast their state's vote in favor of the candidate that won the election in their state. It seems to me this would be a very good point for Republican congressional candidates in red states to run on. Can you imagine the outrage if you were from North Dakota for example and your state voted for McCain - but your one representative in congress was the deciding vote who made Obama president? Schmidt seems like a smart guy. Maybe he could help turn this into a campaign issue in relevant states. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- dan from moscow
- Dan Hill
August 2, 2008 at 11:15am
Our Kind of Guy: Sen. Obama hung around racists and anti-semites for twenty years. He's the one that brought race into the campaign-both against Hillary and now McCain. He 's a Ludicrous fan(listen to some of his lyrics people)-although maybe he'll dump him like Rev. Wright and the others. He said he would accept public campaign money but he went back on that. Now Obama says he'll support off-shore drilling. Ludicrous says he wants to paint the White House black - it will be a black day when Obama gets in there. Go on line and take a look at pictures of some of those oil cities in the Middle East. Are you impressed? You should be. You helped pay for them. Why are we sending $700 billion a year out of the country to pay for something we have in abundance here. We should no more be buying oil from Saudi Arabia than corn from China. 1. Mr. Obama is a first-term senator without a single important legislative achievement to his name. 2. Mr. Obama voted present nearly 130 times,quite a lot for a first term Senator. 3. Mr. Obama lectures on learning a foreign language, can speak none himself. 4. Mr. Obama has never produced a single peice of scholarship,or written anything of note. 5. He earned a law degree from harvard but never practiced law. 6. He did write a book. The subject? Himself. 7. Has he ever admitted he changed his mind or was wrong about anything? 8. on Iraq, Obama has held almost every conceivable position. 9. His Pro-Life (National Right to Life) rating= 2005 0%, 2006 0%, 2007 0% His Pro-Abortion (NARAL) rating= 2005 100%, 2006 100%, 2007 100% What does one innocent human life mean to God( not man, but God)? 10. On Iraq, he has held almost every conceivable opinion
- Poli-ticia
August 2, 2008 at 11:45am
Blame Obama for gas prices, compare him to rich sluts and over react to an obvious statement about the physical differences between himself and the past 43 presidents. This does not seem, at least to me, a position of strength. There is also another swift boat book coming out, with (as media matters has already pointed out) highly dubious personal claims against Obama. As a democrat, I say the more the better. This is not 2004, the electorate needs more than silly personal attacks, they need real adult leadership in a decidedly new direction. Obama's decision to compromise and work with "the repubs and oil companies" highlights this truly adult leadership, that coupled with the repubs abysmal party brand will help O win this election. He must be tough of course, but the years of crying "Flip Flopper" and having that silly fact make up people's minds are passed, especially when the partisan politics of the past several years has proved such an extreme failure.
- meter maid
August 2, 2008 at 12:00pm
Are you really comparing John Kerry's years in the Senate with John MCCain's? It was Kerry himself who "Reported for duty" if I recall. McCain is not making his military experience the sole plank in his platform , ( like Kerry did), and has accomplished enough in the Congress to at least pi## some people off...a common sign of doing a great job.
- Lewis Elion
August 2, 2008 at 12:00pm
A campaign will do what it needs to to win. McCain is an imbecile in my opinion. He has skated on the financial benefits of his rich trophy bride and has head faked a whole bunch of people into supporting him. Obama has lived the American dream. It is an improbable story, but he has clawed his way to the edge of becoming the first African American US president - something that my son used to hope to become. The differences between these two are so stark that it should be a clear choice. If you want to move forward - you chose Obama. If you want to back and fill for 4 years - you chose McCain. I would love to see McCain win the popular vote and lose the electoral. That would be cold revenge for 2000.
- John K
August 2, 2008 at 12:34pm
McCain-Bloomberg brilliant? Except Bloomberg favors Obama for obvious reasons... he too is a bright guy.
- gunadi
August 2, 2008 at 12:56pm
Unbelievable, you call this guy, Schimdt, a strategist? Most people would agree that he is more of a sledgehammer. Anyone who has seen the absurd factual inaccuracies that this man's Political ads have produced has to be appalled. Honestly, how does one compare Obama to Paris Hilton and Britney Spears with a straight face and claim to have integrity and good judgement? Such tactics will turn off independent voters in droves and increase the democratic turnout in great numbers. This guy is definitely out of touch. Choosing to make Obama rather than the terrible situation of the American economy Topic A will only manage to ensure a McCain election lose.
- Socrates
August 2, 2008 at 1:24pm
Well, Tep: (1) Quoting from that same Dickerson article: "Obama looks like he's on the right side of the moment. The Iraqi prime minister has validated his plan for a 16-month withdrawal timeline, and the Bush administration is talking in a similar way. For months, Obama has called for engagement with Iran and now that's what the administration is doing. So, too, on Afghanistan, which he's been focusing on for months. Though he deftly used his Democratic opponents' past votes during the primaries to argue he had better judgment, he'll now seek to take advantage of voters' preference for thinking about the future." (2) Obama -- contrary to Kissinger -- has always left escape hatches for himself in that 16-month deadline, from the very time he first announced it (it could change if there was "a major change in conditions" as reported by the US military). As Dickerson and many others have pointed out, McCain and Bush have actually been converging on HIS position in just the last few weeks -- the only remaining question is the still-undefined extent of the exact differences in their definition of "changing conditions". (3) If McCain tries to use Obama's past errors or lies about the Surge against him, all Obama has to do is run a few ads showing McCain's three-year string of confident prouncements that we were "definitely winning the war", which McCain is not exactly eager to re-unearth himself. (4) To say that the Surge is "succeeding" yet is the overstatement of the century -- Iraq is still a powder keg that can very easily explode within the next few months, right during or after that upcoming election (which is no doubt why al-Maliki is eager to delay it). Al-Sadr called a cease-fire in early 2006 -- long before the Surge -- because he began thinking that he had a good chance of winning that election. He still does -- something al-Maliki is well aware of, which is why he's now come out in favor of telling the Americans to get lost in the near future. (Three-quarters of Iraqis, after all, agree with him on that in that series of ABC-BBC polls of Iraq, including the latest one in March.) As for the "Anbar Awakening": quite apart from McCain's now-famous five month error in when it began and whether the Surge initiated it, it's always been mostly -- or entirely -- a deliberate fraud on the part of both the Sunnis and the Bush Administration. Instead of my spending about five paragraphs listing the reasons why, see the long string of articles initially linked to by Patrick Appel on Andrew Sullivan's site on July 29 -- and keep in mind that those articles are just the latest of a long series. A lot of the Sunnis have always been surprisingly talkative about their real motives. (5) If you actually think that McCain may turn into an anti-fat cat "Teddy Roosevelt" figure: well, my God. In the last few months, after all, he has officially dropped ALL his opposition to Bush's economic policies. Another "Teddy Roosevelt"? You'll get another McKinley (although a dumber and more belligerent one). (6) Regarding McCain's and Bush's straight-faced statements that allowing offshore and ANWR drilling will have a dramatic and fast effect on gas prices: see the official May analyses by Bush's own Energy Information Agency, summarized by Kevin Drum on June 18 (which the White House, if I remember correctly, tried to cover up for a month), concluding that unlimited offshore and ANWR drilling would lower gas prices by only a few cents per gallon -- and won't do even that till some time after 2020. The only effective way to lower gas prices is to manufacture more fuel-efficient cars and rebuild and enlarge the railway system -- and the latter, of course, has the additional advantage that its long-term capital would be PERMANENTLY useful, whereas all those drilling rigs and platforms would be useful only for the few decades before our quite limited supply of offshore and ANWR oil runs out, and would then have to be left to rust. (In this connection, see also the July 3 EPA report -- which the White House tried to cover up since last December, until it got leaked -- concluding that:"Technology is readily available to reduce [gas mileage] of light-duty vehicles between now and 2020; the benefits of these new standards far outweigh their costs; owners of new vehicles complying with the new standards will recoupt the increased vehicle costs within 3-7 years...standards well above 35 mpg would be achievable [before 2040]; and the net benefit to society would be in excess of $2 trillion.")
- Bruce Moomaw
August 2, 2008 at 2:51pm
Obama did not lie. He said the same thing as the Iraqi government did. The nature of insurgencies is such that when out numbered by a superior force, they move out like they did in several cities.
- Richard Thompson
August 2, 2008 at 4:35pm
I see that Josh Patashnik's "Plank" entry today ("More on McCain's Policy Aathy") agrees with me: the reason McCain isn't talking much about his actual policy positions is that (1) they're unpopular, and (2) once they're exposed by even a little more analysis as the garbage they are, they'll be even more unpopular. What CAN he possibly do in such a situation, except to keep dropping heavy hints about how dangerous it may be to put a Nigra in the White House? In this connection, by the way, it's also useful to consult those recent Quinnipiac polls over the last week of seven very important swing states (running from Pennsylvania to Colorado) -- the ones that got such widespread popularity because they do show McCain closing the gap by a few percent. There was a great deal of brouhaha about how this might be because, by margins of about 20 points, people in all 7 states want more offshore drilling. What was NOT emphasized was that people in all 7 states said they still favored Obama over McCain on energy policy by margins of about 7 points -- because, as it turned out, they favored building renewable energy sources and better-mileage cars by tremendously bigger landslides (margins of 50 to 70 points!)
- Bruce Moomaw
August 2, 2008 at 5:03pm
One sidenote: Kissinger's column (quote favorably by Teplukhin) confirms yet again that Henry has a habit of -- how I can put this politely? -- lying through his teeth: "Thirty years ago, Congress cut off aid to Vietnam and Cambodia two years after American troops had been withdrawn and local forces were still desperate to resist. Domestic divisions had overcome all other considerations. We must not repeat the tragedy that followed." Now, let's quote Rick Perlstein's detailed analysis of that vote a couple of years ago in the New Republic Online: "Early in 1974, Nixon requested a support package for the South Vietnamese that included $474 million in emergency military aid. The Senate Armed Services Committee balked and approved about half. A liberal coup? Hardly. One of the critics was Senator Barry Goldwater. 'We can scratch South Vietnam,' he said. 'It is imminent that South Vietnam is going to fall into the hands of North Vietnam.' The House turned down the president's emergency aid request 177 to 154; the majority included 50 Republicans. They were only, as I wrote in The New Republic ('The Unrealist,' November 6, 2006), honoring what Nixon and National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger privately believed. They had gladly negotiated their peace deal under the assumption that South Vietnam would fall when the United States left. What would it have cost to keep South Vietnam in existence without an American military presence? The Pentagon, in 1973, estimated $1.4 billion even for an 'austere program.' Nixon and Kissinger were glad for the $700 million South Vietnam eventually got (including a couple hundred million for military aid), because their intention was merely to prop up Saigon for a 'decent interval' until the American public forgot about the problem. By 1974, Kissinger pointed out [in one of the Nixon tapes], 'no one will give a damn.'... "Apparently, they didn't tell Gerald Ford. He addressed the nation in April 1975, eight months after becoming president, and implored Congress for $722 million in military aid. The speech was overwhelmingly and universally unpopular -- the kind of thing that made Ford seem such a joke to the nation at the time. Rowland Evans and Robert Novak called it 'blundering.' Seventy-eight percent of the public was against any further military aid; Republicans like James McClure of Idaho and Henry Bellmon of Oklahoma opposed the appropriation... Democratic hawk Scoop Jackson said, 'I oppose it. I don't know of any on the Democratic side who will support it.' The Senate vote against it was 61 to 32." So Goldwater, Jackson and McClure voted against it because of "domestic considerations", although they were all super-popular in their home states and there was never the slightest danger that they'd lose reelection if they voted for it?
- Bruce Moomaw
August 2, 2008 at 5:12pm
One final note: For still more on the "Anbar Awakening" as a joint Sunni-Bush fraud, see the article "The Myth of AQI" (with extensive details) by former "Stars and Stripes" correspondent Andrew Tilghman in the Oct. 2007 Washington Monthly. It meshes beautifully with the series of more recent articles cited by Patrick Appel.
- Bruce Moomaw
August 2, 2008 at 5:25pm
This just in from "TPM Cafe": McCain is now pouring 1/3 of his total TV budget into the "Britney Spears" ad, and is running a new ad in which a Spanish-speaking guy accuses Obama of being "uninterested in Hispanics" because he didn't mention any Latin American cities during his Berlin speech. Personally, if Teplukhin really is waiting for McCain to run an "issue-oriented campaign", I think he has a long, long wait ahead of him.
- Bruce Moomaw
August 2, 2008 at 8:12pm
Interesting piece on Schmitt, well wrtten, well paced and thoughful. Schmitt emerges as a talented man, less ideological than Rove and so more moderate politically. I would have thought Obama can't lose, this article on Schmitt makes me wonder. As for material on Obama read Will's Sunday--August 3, 2008--op ed on Obama-saturation as seen from a take dwon of the Berlin speech. The Will piece is superb. As for the suggestion of a McCain Bloomberg ticket, someone is spending too much time in Fantasyland.
- itzik basman
August 3, 2008 at 10:21am
Tep - you're the liar. Not a syllable that you write about Obama has one iota of truth to it, including "and" and "the" as they say. You're clinical.
- WandreyCer1
August 3, 2008 at 3:47pm
Dick Morris has it right: Obama is an appeaser, who will be soft on Iran, and weak on support for Israel. He also was for ethanol, which helped raise food prices, but got him votes in Iowa. McCain opposed these subsidies, and also earmarks (which Obama is in favor of). And why can't we drill off-shore (Norway does). But, of course, Obama is coming around to the possibility of that, too (He's seen the polls). Finally, let him admit that the Sunni Awakening went hand-in-hand with the injection of U.S. troops into Iraq. Obama's judgment was right about hot going into Iraq, but he's been wrong ever since.
- Steve A
August 3, 2008 at 10:49pm
Steve A,I don't know if Dick Morris has it right, but you do by and large.
- itzik basman
August 4, 2008 at 2:04pm
The three named in this article: Wallace, Schmidt and McKinnon are being fingered as the anonymous post-election Palin maligners. Why would they take such a self-destructive strategy as to backstab Palin anonymously? They are described in this article as uniformly competent, savvy and professional. Something doesn't jive.
- John Dixon
November 13, 2008 at 6:49am