Joe Klein beat me to it and said pretty much everything that needs to be said: When Joe Biden claimed wealthy Americans have a patriotic duty to pay more in taxes, he was absolutely right. This is a time of crisis, domestic and foreign. The public has needs, from a vigilant national defense to access to basic medical care, that only the government can meet. And the government is running out of money, primarily because it's been starved of resources.
And now, for something new, John McCain is attacking Barack Obama over his big-spending ways: The text of this new advertisement, for those who don't want to sit through the cilp, goes like this: When our economy's in crisis, a big government casts a big shadow on us all. Obama and his liberal Congressional allies want a massive government, billions in spending increases, wasteful pork. And, we would pay--painful income taxes, skyrocketing taxes on life savings, electricity and home heating oil. Can your family afford that? I have no idea whether this is an actual television advertisement
Politics inspires more armchair quarterbacking than football. And although I know a thing or two about public policy, my instinct is to assume that veteran political strategists--particularly those now working for Barack Obama--know better than I do how to manage a presidential campaign. So it's entirely possible that their new advertisement is the perfect spot at the perfect time.
In presidential campaigns, we talk a lot about the number of people without health insurance. And rightly so. When almost a fifth of the working-age population has no coverage at all, the country has a serious problem on its hands. But it's not just whether you have insurance that matters. It's also what kind of insurance. If your insurance doesn't cover necessary services or if it has onerous deductiles and co-payments, you could still be in a lot of trouble.
My caller ID said "CENTRAL RESEARC 212-777-1645." Ugh, I figured. Another telemarketer. It was 6:43 pm and, under normal circumstances, I would have let it go to voice mail. But it came on my home office line and I happened to be expecting a call from New York. So I answered. It turned out to be a political poll. And not just any old poll. It started off in the usual way. Am I registered to vote? Do I plan to vote on election day? How do I label myself politically? A few seemingly innocuous questions about religion followed. What was my faith? What was my denomination?
OK, it's not the most important sentence you will read today. But it's certainly the most revealing if you want to understand how the dynamics of the presidential race may be changing. It comes via a press release from the McCain campaign, out just minutes ago.
I've never been a huge fan of "change" as a campaign slogan, just because it's so unspecific. What kind of change? On whose behalf? And while I think the slogan worked well enough in the Democratic primaries, that's because Obama was running against an opponent whom so many voters already identified the past (for better and for worse). The trouble with "change" as a general election theme is that John McCain can lay claim to that mantle, too.
How did it play politically? Will it energize the base? Will it make swing voters swoon? As usual, your guess is as good as mine--or any of the pundits you see yapping on the television right now. Until the focus groups and polls come in, we're all just speculating. But I can register a verdict on substance. If this was McCain's answer to voter anxiety about the economy, it wasn't too impressive. As you've been reading--or, perhaps, as you've noticed on your own--economic policy has not been a big theme this week in Minneapolis.
John McCain, moments ago: I will keep taxes low and cut them where I can. My opponent will raise them. The non-partisan Tax Policy Center, last week: The Obama plan would reduce taxes for low- and moderate-income families, but raise them significantly for high-bracket taxpayers (see Figure 2). By 2012, middle-income taxpayers would see their after-tax income rise by about 5 percent, or nearly $2,200 annually. Those in the top 1 percent would face a $19,000 average tax increase—a 1.5 percent reduction in after-tax income.
Mitt Romney just opened his speech by attacking East Coast elites. That would be the same Mitt Romney who holds two degrees from Harvard, ran a top East Coast consulting firm, served as governor of Massachusetts, and makes his (primary) home in the wealthy Boston suburb of Belmont. Seriously, though, I still have a soft spot for Romney. Yes, he's one of the most transparently calculating politicians of his generation. And, yes, to the extent he holds ideological principles I oppose them strongly. But I respect what he's accomplished, both in the private sector and in government.