Specter Leaves Party In Disarray

HOW CAN A REPUBLICAN STAND SUCH TIMES AND LIVE?
Arlen Specter, you scoundrel! How could you?

That rumble in Washington today was the ground more than shifting under the GOP, but sidewalks buckling and children being swallowed by the Earth. Sen. Specter is leaving the Republican party for hopefully greener senatorial pastures on the left. To begin, nothing comes as a surprise in D.C. Speculation of Specter switching parties had been rumored more as a highly implausible last ditch effort to retain his precarious seat in the Senate, but never seriously contemplated one bit. Its execution was swift, calculated and so shocking that Republican ire has yet to materialize commensurate with the blow Specter dealt. The venerable National Review, as of 5:30 p.m. pacific time today, has very little analysis of the news except for a rambling, seemingly hurting post from David Freddoso.

It's true, Democrats inherit a moderate conservative who, if he wins the nomination and defeats his Republican challenger, will not reflect the views of a majority of blue state Pennsylvanians. His filibuster-proof 60th vote is compelling, though. (Salon's Glenn Greenwald has a good explaination of what Specter's move means) President Obama supports Specter's move and Senate Leader Harry Reid restored his 29-year seniority in the Senate. Ostensibly, Specter will caucus with Democrats when that 60th vote is needed at all times for such support. It will also allow Specter, who had Hodgkin's disease and has indicated he wants to remain in the Senate to push through health care legislation, to honestly vote with Democrats on any end-of-the-year legislation the Administration says it will offer.

Assuredly, Specter's move rattles what it means to be a Republican legislator post-George W. Bush. To his credit, Specter was unequivocal about his intention to switch party affiliation. The polls said he could not beat the anti-tax crusader Pat Toomey in the GOP primary so he went to the other side. What it means in the long run is either the party has a crude, long-term plan to rid itself of any ideology other than the far right or the party is in the process of true disintegration. Specter's move shows that a Republican of any other persuasion but Christian, far right and anti-abortion can retain or win a seat. How can a far right, anti-tax maven like Toomey possibly win a general election in Pennsylvania? He can't and the same dilemma will follow Republicans across the country until the party can figure out what it can in Obama's America, but that seems a bit away judging by some of their comments.

Rush Limbaugh waved off Specter's move by insisting he should take Sen. John McCain with him. You remember McCain, right? He was the party's choice for president just five months ago and the GOP mouthpiece wants him out. He also insinuated deposing Kansas Sen. Sam Brownback because he voted today for his own state's nominee for secretary of health and human services. If Republicans don't want a dyed-in-the-wool righty like Brownback who exactly do they want?

Obama Angles For GOP's Small Town Folksy Imagery

GOP ISN'T LOSING ITS CONSTITUENCY; DEMS ARE TAKING IT BACK
What happens when Kansas figures out "what's the matter" with itself? Conservative columnist David Brooks sees the end of the GOP's dominance on small town issues that use to be soaked in flimsy, folksy concepts of decades past.

Brooks' column today in the New York Times seems to be pushing conservatives to press the panic button; President Obama is becoming a cultural Republican!

America once had a responsible economic culture, Obama argued. People used to save their pennies to buy their dream houses. Banks used to lend by “traditional standards.” Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac used to stick to their “traditional mandate.” Companies like A.I.G. used to limit themselves to the “traditional insurance business.”

Brooks sees the gambit as possibly "the greatest train robbery in American politics." Maybe it would be. Something akin to President Clinton ending welfare "as we know it." The reality is, Obama's outreach to the fiscal "values" and hard-work ethos of traditional America is actually a case of Democrats appealing to an important base that should have been in their column since Ronald Reagan snatched it from liberals nearly 30 years ago.

One of the basic tenets of this blog to draw out the distinctions made in Thomas Frank's seminal book, "What's the Matter with Kansas?" The book famously theorizes conservative working class Americans do not vote with their economic interests in mind when they vote for Republicans. Along the way, the Three G's--Gays, Guns and God--appeal to their morality and clouds their decision-making.

When Brooks says, "If Republicans aren’t nervous, they should be" he isn't kidding. The Republican is dangerously close to becoming merely a regional Southern entity characterized by extreme religious right wingers. The issues of small town values is just about the only notable issue they possess unless the U.S. decides to fight a war against China over the issue of abortion. And I doubt that will happen. Although China does have too many people.

It was already unclear how, in an era when Americans have kitchen table problems to worry about rather than the standard social red herrings typically used by conservatives, the GOP can be able to formulate a plan to revive its brand image. I don't normally give advice to conservatives, but heed Brooks' words. You cannot allow Democrats to be the party of financial order and small town fiscal responsibility. Don't ask me how to stop it, though. How do you stop a runaway avalanche? You don't.

Turnabout: Now It's The Liberals Aiming To Conquer The Nation?

BREITBART'S COMMENTS ARE SOOOO 2008
If you write and follow politics for awhile, you'll notice both sides utilize the same tricks no matter how ridiculous they might be. Take for example a opinion piece in the right-wing Washington Times.

Andrew Breitbart used the same criticism against liberals that the left levied against the conservatives for the last eight years regarding the veracity of their beliefs, specifically in this article, online comments crafted by lefties on conservative web sites.

Uninvited Democratic activists are on a mission to demoralize the enemy - us. They want to ensure that Barack Obama is not subject to the same coordinated, facts-be-damned, multimedia takedown they employed over eight long years to destroy the presidency - and the humanity - of George W. Bush.

Political leftists play for keeps. They are willing to lie, perform deceptive acts in a coordinated fashion and do so in a wicked way - all in the pursuit of victory. Moral relativism is alive and well in the land of Hope and Change and its Web-savvy youth brigade expresses its "idealism" in a most cynical fashion.

The ends justify the means for them - now more than ever

It is a appalling and downright disingenuous to say President Bush was somehow torpedoed by left wing generated falsehoods when it was the dissemination of the truth which thwarted even more damage to the country than what eventually occurred. Liberals did not create the fact that WMD did not exist in Iraq, or that torture techniques were co-opted by the Administration or that the war in Iraq was about the military-industrial complex taking part in war profiteering.

On the contrary, "politics for keeps" mixed with deception and fear are all hallmarks of Karl Rove and have been reported on this web site for nearly five years. Pieces such as these give pause to the notion the Republican Party can rebound and for the good of the nation contribute new ideas to the conversation. We need a healthy opposition party in times like these, when many are feeling more desperation by the state of our economic affairs. For godsake, even listing the litany of Bush-era offenses makes me feel out of touch with our current situation. If only conservatives could realize they lost the election and now make a contribution instead of impeding progress with silly accusations.

Americans Are Getting Angrier; Will They Take It out On Obama?

REPUBLICANS ARE POISED TO TAKE UP THE POPULIST MANTLE
Here's something a bit worrisome: It is now apparent President Obama failed the first test of his decision-making abilities when he appointed Timothy Geithner to the Treasury. Worse, it was the one cabinet position that needed to sufficiently filled for the times we live. Shockingly, the administration has backed dubious bank-friendly policies and incoherent explanations from Geithner about what he intends to do with the banks. Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz has a fine article in The Nation this week that illustrates the Treasury Department's apprehension to make the tough decisions.

Robert Reich says get rid of him before more damage is done, although he recommends Paul Volcker, whose monetary policies were the reason for the 1981-82 recession--the original worst recession since the Great Depression?

It is possible that we will look back at the administration's feeble attempts to dissuade AIG not to pay up to $165 million in bonuses to the very people who torched the company and the economy as the beginning of populist anger that can be easily co-opted by the Republican party. Most likely, the immense pressure the White House and Congress can apply will force AIG to find some sort of escape clause allowing them to recoup the bonuses, but the damage has been done. While the former president signed off executive orders with impunity, even possibly trashing the Constitution in the process, this president cannot stop an insolvent insurance company masquerading as a hedge fund from doing the wrong thing. This is not the sort of change in Washington Obama vowed to bring.

Although Obama currently garners the support of about two-thirds of opinion polls, it's hard not to see the likelihood of Congressional losses in 2010 and here the seed may have been sown. History has shown the havoc that can be caused with a restless, underemployed electorate. Mix in, an incredibly weak minority party waiting for the perfect campaign theme and you have the recipe for a reawakened Republican party.

By the fall, the poor economy can fairly be viewed as "owned" by Obama's policies and populist anger is something that can easily be molded to your own means. All Republicans would have to do in mid-term elections is point to the perception no one in administration seems to know how to fix the problem, so they just throw "taxpayer" money at it. The Republicans don't even have to be particularly dirty to make the point, either.

Rep. Mitch McConnell makes a cogent point in the Times, "The government has been heavily involved in A.I.G. for some months now. It’s shocking that they would — the administration would come to us now and act surprised about these contracts. Why didn’t they ask the question two weeks ago, before they gave them $30 billion?” An editorial in today's Wall Street Journal also makes this point and rightly points the finger at politicians, too.

If the public continues to see the economy grow worse in tandem with these easily recognizable abuses by the financial sector, it is likely conservatives will make positive gains next year while the image of Obama as the "chosen one" is greatly diminished.

Rush Falls All Over Himself; Waits For Gingrich To Kiss His Ring

LIMBAUGH SEEMS INTENT ON BOOSTING RATINGS AT EXPENSE OF THE GOP
Rush Limbaugh has reached levels of delusion unknown to mankind. After Newt Gingrich took a shot at the GOPfather's legitimacy yesterday on Meet the Press, Limbaugh sounded off on the former Speaker of the House, saying:

Here's my attitude on this. I am at the top of the mountain of what I do. Everybody underneath it wants what I've got. That's great. That's human nature. As such, they'll do what they can to take me down or to criticize me or what have you. It is beneath my dignity to be critical of those beneath me. It's just a waste of time. All this is such human nature. I know that Newt would give his whatever to have what I've got. So would any of these other critics of mine.

Is Limbaugh beginning to live up to the observation made by David Letterman that he looked like an Eastern European thug? (See the photo above) Is Limbaugh on drugs again? If not, is he taking his meds and who told him to wear a black silk shirt unbuttoned wide? I haven't seen so much chest hair exposed since the Portuguese dance last Fall.

So, another Republican is challenging Limbaugh. Who cares? In attacking a venerable old lion of the party, Limbaugh can assured that The Newt will not return next week with an exhaustive mea culpa like other Republican weaklings have done recently. What the statements do reveal is that Limbaugh is honest about his motives. He is an entertainer with a huge daily radio audience. He is not the leader of the party, nor does he want it. What "Ditto heads" should realize, though, is that his relentless quest for ratings is hurting the party he professes to adore. Makes you wonder if a conservative can really trust him. Of course, you shouldn't trust a liberal like me with the intent to further divide the Republican party either.

Obama Makes Friends; GOP Still The Meanie

Now that President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus package into law with a smidgen of bipartisan support, what's next on the "working with the other guys" front?

The New Yorker's Hendrik Hertzberg believes the President will not shelve his support of reaching out to Congressional Republicans. He even goes so far to compare his resolve to that of the Civil Rights leaders and even Ghandi.

Fifty years ago, the civil-rights movement understood that nonviolence can be an effective weapon even if—or especially if—the other side refuses to follow suit. Obama has a similarly tough-minded understanding of the political uses of bipartisanship, which, even if it fails as a tactic for compromise, can succeed as a tonal strategy: once the other side makes itself appear intransigently, destructively partisan, the game is half won. Obama is learning to throw the ball harder. But it’s not Rovian hardball he’s playing. More like Gandhian hardball.

If Obama continues this gambit in wooing Republicans without compromise he could seriously anger the left--a constituency that feels it was purposely denied access to government by the Bush administration for eight years. Will Obama spend energy on the GOP regarding health care or even the likely next confrontation over the Treasury's $2 billion overhaul of the banking industry? Unfortunately, if Obama sticks to his plan of attack, Washington may be on the verge of grinding to a halt in a wholly different way to when the Senate was virtually 50-50.

As noted last week and lampooned on Saturday Night Live, the GOP leadership has a plan for the next 18 months--obstructionism followed by the framing of the poor economy as solely Obama's baby.

Reverting back to ones childhood might be instructive. How many times do you attempt to play friendly with the kid who had all the cool toys, but did not allow you to partake in the fun? Once? Twice? By the third time you either found another friend or push the kid into the shrubs. If Republicans don't play nice, eventually Democrats are going to begin shoving conservatives into the icy Potomac.

GOP Plays CSI With Economy

IF ECONOMY CONTINUE TO TANK IN '10; GOP IS 'INNOCENT'
The politics over the stimulus plan and its near-unanimous rejection by congressional Republicans is already taking center stage for the drama that will be the 2010 mid-term elections. Robert Reich wrote an interesting blog posting this week exploring the reasons why Republicans will not have a thing to do with the proposal.

Republicans don't want their fingerprints on the stimulus bill or the next bank bailout because they plan to make the midterm election of 2010 a national referendum on Barack Obama's handling of the economy. They know that by then the economy will still appear sufficiently weak that they can dub the entire Obama effort a failure -- even if the economy would have been far worse without it, even if the economy is beginning to turn around.

During two votes in the U.S. House of Representatives, no Republican backed either version of the stimulus. It took a few centrist-leaning Northeastern Republicans to win passage by a single vote in the Senate. A Reuters story yesterday implied that President Obama's rival Sen. John McCain was portraying the nascent administration as adverse to bipartisanship and characterized the plan by saying, "I think that the majority of people understand that this was generational theft." Democrats, conversely, begin to complain that the bill was too bipartisan -- even without GOP cooperation. In an interview with conservative newsweekly NewsMax, the leader of 1994's "Contract with America" Newt Gingrich said he "absolutely" sees a connection between when Republicans took over the House and 2010.

Irwin M. Stelzer imparts these talking points while writing in The Weekly Standard and illustrates this point by saying that Obama "now owns the recession." By pegging the troubled economy solely on Obama, these critics may believe that the president cannot possibly make in-roads in quite enough time for congressional elections next year.

He has asked to be judged by whether this bill and other measures he will propose create or "save" 3.5-to-4 million jobs, the number lost so far since unemployment turned up. Forget "save" -- if unemployment keeps rising, voters are not likely to rally around the slogan "It would be still worse if I hadn't spent your trillions." What the President has done is to promise what he certainly can't deliver in time for the congressional elections next year -- a reversal of job destruction, and millions of new jobs, said Stelzer.

When it's all said and done, it's still all about the economy, stupid, as Bill Clinton's campaign declared in 1992. How President Obama, congressional Democrats and the Republican opposition react to that in 2009 will be a tale we're likely to hear a lot about in 2010.

Stim Bill Isn't Sufficiently Super-Sized

DEALING WITH THE GOP DEFLATED THE PLAN'S OOOMMPH
President Obama will likely sign a stimulus bill this week roughly the same size he initially offered, but wholly different in composition. Some like Robert Reich and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman never thought it was large enough in the first place, and the watered down bill is furthering their anxiety. Krugman wrote last week:

And I don’t know about you, but I’ve got a sick feeling in the pit of my stomach — a feeling that America just isn’t rising to the greatest economic challenge in 70 years. The best may not lack all conviction, but they seem alarmingly willing to settle for half-measures. And the worst are, as ever, full of passionate intensity, oblivious to the grotesque failure of their doctrine in practice.

During a speech last month at The Commonwealth Club of California, former Labor Secretary Robert Reich reiterated his belief that the stimulus bill should be over $900 billion or more over the next two years. On his blog he wrote this week:

But what if the stimulus isn't big enough? (I fear it won't be, given the large and growing gap between what the economy can produce at near full-employment and the meager demand coming from consumers and businesses.) And what if the bailout doesn't quite work? (It may not, given that the banking system is collapsing and many banks are actually insolvent.) The economy in November of 2010 may be worse than it is now, with no turnaround in sight.

Reich also predicted during his Commonwealth Club address that President Obama might bargain with Republicans to win votes in a bipartisan fashion. This indeed occurred, and the nearly across-the-board rejection by Republicans of the plan has rankled many Democrats. Joan Walsh at Salon wrote today about President Obama, "He better have learned that Washington bipartisanship is dead." Even the president's chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, admitted that working with congressional Republicans who were dead set against the bill was a mistake. Not surprisingly, the editors at the conservative National Review declared President Obama's economic plan already has a ring of "no-confidence" surrounding it.

This article and others can be read at the Commonwealth Club of California's blog, commonwealthclub.blogspot.com.

GOP Still Doesn't Get It Or Give It

WHO NEEDS TAX CUTS FOR A CAR WHEN YOU'RE BROKE?
Patriotism and necessity aside, forging a bipartisan bill with Republicans this early in the Obama presidency was always going to be a tall order. It's a quite normal for the minority party in Washington to show its mettle, if puny in relation to Democrats, but the political gamesmanship on the part of the GOP only further displays their disconnect to the plight of Americans.

I have a friend who depends on a 40-hour work week and medical insurance to pay the rent and stay healthy. Last week, her employer slashed her hours and nixed her health coverage. Another was recently laid off to sit at home with her three children and wonder what the next few months has to offer. State workers in California received what amounts to a 10 percent pay cut to stay home from their jobs two days a month. That times are tough is no longer a throwaway catch phrase nowadays but reality. Things are getting worse. The numbers even show it and we feel it.

Democrats could have probably been pushed into a worse compromise than the one made yesterday with Senate Republicans, but the existence of more tax cuts is only a reminder that the GOP doesn't get it.

Why would Americans need $30 billion tax cuts to encourage the purchase of new homes and automobiles. Shockingly, new digs and a fully-loaded Buick is not high on the wish list when you are wondering about your next paycheck. Besides, would the tax credits offset the inability of regular Americans to receive a fair interest rate on a loan? It's not likely.

I think this point of c0ntinued economic inequity and political blindness on the part of the GOP is becoming more pervasive since the day President Obama announced an executive salary cap on firms who accept bailout funds. By shaming CEOs into accepting only $500k, he made the beleaguered Titans of finance look petty and greedy. How ridiculous did countless talking heads and lobbyists of executives seem when they pleaded across the board that such a low salary would make it difficult to attract "good talent". To which the country screamed, "Where was the good talent before we got into this mess?" I've never found the stuffed suits traipsing along every Financial District as nothing more than falsely stoked bubbles of testosterone and mythologized machismo. Really? Are these "banksters" nothing more than football coaches in fine tailored suits fitted with bluetooths instead of head phones?

At the very least, we must continue to veer away from principles and characters previously associated with this downturn in America's economy and morally specific predilection towards greed. This means straying away from Obama's main guys at the Treasury--Tim Geithner and Larry Summers--and economic recipes like tax cuts and laissez-faire government. Recovery is about stimulus. As the President said this week the stimulus is about spending and it needs to reach the state and local level for the mood of disheartened unemployed Americans rise hopeful again. In the meantime, the GOP continue to be nothing but an opposition party to Democrats and to the American people.

Arizona's Other Senator Caught In News Blackout

IS CLEAN AIR GETTING STALE IN D.C.? KYL BECOMING OBAMA'S ANTAGONIST

Somebody get Arizona's junior Senator Jon Kyl a newspaper subscription.

During a brief debate with the new president over the inclusion of tax cuts for people who may have earned enough to pay income tax, Obama reportedly told the square-headed senator, "I won."

Sure, sounds a bit Bushian, doesn't it? Sort of like after 2004 election, when President Bush announced he had attained "political capital" and intended to "spend it." Except, the difference from this perceive cocky utterance come this fact: Obama did convincingly win the election.

Kyl, who Sen. John McCain accidentally named-dropped this week for a presidential run in 2012, and other Republicans think such cuts amount to government-backed welfare. Undoubtedly, most of those who fail to earn high enough wages to pay income tax are also the poorest among us. It is generally accepted that the quickest way to put money in the economy is to give it to lower income families who will likely spend it on food, clothing, rent and health care. Of course, most of those people did not vote for the other senator from Arizona--McCain.

The exchange between Kyl and Obama was confirmed by both sides. There was no tone or context included in any story, although Kyl did criticize Obama's inauguration speech, so there may be some brewing animosity. What is implicit, despite the atmosphere of congeniality Obama and Democrats on Capitol Hill are espousing during week one of the new administration, Republicans need to realize most of the policies laid out by president during the campaign have the backing of a majority of voters. Instead, of fighting, the GOP needs to quickly figure how to slightly navigate to closer to left to survive these days.

Hillary Aiming To Stoke Righty Voters?

CLINTON REFERS TO 800 LB. GORILLA IN THE ROOM

Sen. Hillary Clinton smacked the kiss of death on her former primary challenger, Sen. Barack Obama this morning on ABC's Good Morning America.

"I think we're headed for a very big win," said Clinton.

Jinx!

It's one thing for columnists to say such things or for reporters to quote no-name politicians and pundits, but it's a clarion call for conservative Hillary-hating Republicans to hear her speaking with such confidence.

Could she be flinging a red herring into the ring just as Obama is solidifying and building upon his lead over Sen. John McCain.

If there's a way to boost Republican voters to the polls Nov. 4, it's a smug-talking Hillary Clinton rubbing it in their face.

Probable Democratic Majority Needs To Heal Country

IMPULSE TO PUNISH GOP MUST BE TEMPERED

If the Bush presidency has a legacy besides bumbling wars and reducing our stand in the worldwide community, it is the polarization of our politics—by extension, the division of our society.

Blue and red, white and black, North and South, rich and poor, Democrat and Republican. These splits are geographical, racial, economical and ideological and provide an impetus for those who have an interest in keeping the status quo these demographics provide—the equal grinding of beliefs that allow little improvement, bipartisanship or political harmony.

Republicans in Washington are as much to blame for this atmosphere of divide and conquer as much as Democrats who wallowed in the shadow of the administration's terrorism what-if's.

It's a good bet that Democrats will attain the executive branch and both houses of Congress this November. When that times comes, it is imperative that the Democratic majority not punish the GOP with legislative dominance, but take the higher ground.

Many extreme lefties might find this electoral triumph a prime opportunity to pay back conservatives who at one time in the early Rovian Bush White House actively sought to destroy the Democratic party, ruthlessly hung the specter of 9/11 over the left and rammed through legislation and operated congressional committees as if they had attained a huge mandate to run the country in this manner.

In practical terms, the healing must begin by curbing the habit of liberal elites to heap scorn and passive aggressive rhetoric towards working class conservatives.

They don't realize the incessant hammering of Sarah Palin is an assault on low-to-middle class Americans who live on processed American cheese rather than imported Gruyere.

Portraying Palin as a gun-totting Alaskan snow hick alienates large swaths of the American political landscape who might covet their rifles as much as you make sure your golf clubs are pristine.

Peace-loving, pony-tailed, 50-somethings on Telegraph fail to see they are as anathema to the real beliefs of Americans as much as conservatives on the religious right who might believe Jesus rode dinosaurs through the streets of Bethlehem.

[Liberals] don't realize the incessant hammering of Sarah Palin is an assault on low-to-middle class Americans who live on processed American cheese rather than imported Gruyere.

As author and Georgetown professor Dr. Michael Eric Dyson said last week during his lecture at Cal State East Bay, both candidates only talk about the middle class, “What about the poor people?”

Wealthy Democrats seem to forget about their own constituency often in their quest to quash low income people do not espouse the liberal view of America.

When Democrats talk about their economically dispossessed constitutency, it's code for black people.

But, most of impoverished America is not part of the minority, but white. Poor people in Appalachia, the Deep South and farmers struggling in the Plains are not heard and constantly picked on for being different than coastal Democrats.

An opportunity is missed if this harmful condescension continues into the next four years. In a time, when the financial durability of the world economy is in doubt, this is the moment when bipartisanship can be achieved with the added bonus of being attained under a Democratic majority.

Democrats have the opportunity to take the higher ground, they must act upon it for the nation's future.

McCain Nation Sees Debate Differently

FORGET THE ECONOMY, I WANT TO BOMB, BOMB IRAN!

You could say Nathan George's Berkeley home was like a Trojan horse.

Through Sen. John McCain's campaign website, George summoned follow conservatives to his home to watch the first presidential debate last Friday evening.

In the bastion of liberal ideology, the group of 14 was like strangers in a strange land, nestled just a block from Shattuck Avenue where students with piercings galore and the scent of incense wafted down the street.

“I thought about putting out a sign,” said George, a native of North Carolina who is working on his doctoral degree at Cal, “but I decided against it.”

A large part of this election's storyline has been a return to grassroots activism married with the ability of the internet to bring people together.

Aside from a few conservative college students, the party brought McCain supporters from well-to-do Bay Area locales such as Kensington and Montclair.

Everyone in attendance indicated this was the first time ever participating in such event and most seemed firmly in the Arizona senator's camp.

“This debate shows that McCain is up to the job. McCain was successful in putting the pressure on Obama,” said James Shinn of Kensington, “The last half of the debate Obama had to keep defending himself.”

Shinn, who is a retired foreign diplomat served in Southeast Asia, Pakistan, and various Central European nations had a keen view of the debate which primarily dealt with foreign policy issues that tend to play well to McCain's strengths.

During a contentious moment during the last half of the debate regarding Sen. Barack Obama's position of talking to the foreign leaders of countries in conflict with the U.S., Shinn was in agreement with McCain's cautious approach.

“Being a diplomat, you cannot sit across the table and allow free reign in a meeting because what happens is like what McCain said they'll say this and you'll say no you can't.”

He also disagreed with Obama's rebuttal that Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is not even the country's top decision maker.

“Sure, he's not the top guy, but he's out there and he's doing what the ayatollahs want him to say,” Shinn said while also citing Ahmedinejad's inflammatory statements at the United Nations earlier in the week.

Others cited McCain's foreign policy chops as the reason why they believed their candidate was successful last Friday.

“Clearly the turning point was the way he talked about all the foreign places he had visited and his experiences there,” said George.

Leigh Dukatt, a McCain supporter from Emeryville, also thought McCain showed a mastery of foreign policy while exhibiting his tendency to buck party lines.

“He knew what he was talking about. I liked how he talked about opposing some previous conflicts like in Lebanon. McCain showed he is the right guy for the job,” Dukatt said.

If instant polling of Friday's debate is to believed, despite McCain's foreign policy advantage, Americans believed Obama won the first matchup of presidential candidates.

Whereas many political observers viewed the debate as a barometer of how well Obama could stand up to criticism that he's inexperienced, some at the debate party were interested in the opposite.

Shinn, like many other pundits finds overtones in these debates with the 1980 presidential election when Ronald Reagan's lack of executive gravitas was opposed by a president foundering in a weak economy, except he believes McCain is the candidate Americans need to decide whether they are comfortable sitting in the Oval Office and not Obama.

“The Democrats said he was cowboy and didn't know anything and wasn't up to the job. People wondered 'am I comfortable with him on the button?' That's what elections are about in America, 'how comfortable am I with this person?” said Shinn.

In fact, the Cold War-era question of “who will have their finger on the button” was curiously mentioned by the group on three occasions during a post-debate discussion.

Friday's debate was aired amidst heightened worries over the economy, yet few of the McCain supporters, who said they were fiscally conservative Republicans against expanding government, were uninterested in the candidates opening remarks.

“The economy is not my top concern,” said George, “A president gets his top people to handle the economy.”

Others take a more pragmatic approach and believe McCain should take a more populist approach in his rhetoric rather than cautiously matching Obama's what-and-see approach to the economy.

“McCain could do more, but he's caught being in the party he's in,” said Shinn, “He should go four square on this bailout issue. He should hammer populist themes against golden parachutes and corporate greed.”