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.

Will Obama Attend Easter Mass? Bush, Saint Reagan Never Had Time

INVOKING SECURITY CONCERNS IS A GOOD EXCUSE

The managing editor at Fox News makes a good observation about the lack of news regarding President Obama's Easter Sunday plans. Which church is he going to attend? I don't really care as much as attempt to point out our two seemingly most pious recent presidents--Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush rarely attended Sunday services.

The Fox News blog posting recounts Reagan's lame excuse his presence would put undue stress on the congregation. Good try. Presidents Carter and Clinton regularly attend. Bush, who attempted to make us believe his election was manna from Heaven and consulted on foreign policy with Jesus rather than his more experienced father, hardly ever set foot in church despite being a born again Christian. In fact, he believed himself so religious that he did not need to attend. I'll try using that line with my grandmother this weekend.

U.S., Russia Push 'Reset'; Cold War Distrust Remains

OBAMA USES COLD WAR TACTICS TO CORNER THE KREMLIN
While most of the industrialized world prepares to fix the world's economy next week in London, an important geopolitical sideshow will be taking place when the U.S. and Russia discuss an old Cold War sticking point.

With the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) due to expire this December, old diplomatic ploys and negotiations are returning to the table while both sides have retained suspicions of each other's intentions. Back in 1982, President Reagan presented the then-Soviet Union with an offer to reduce the number of strategic nuclear weapons pointed at each other. The beginnings of the START suffered many starts and stops during the 1980s. The treaty was not signed until 1991.

The Bush Administration's announcement late last year to install weapons interceptors in Poland and radar capabilities in the Czech Republic -- two former members of the Iron Curtain -- is reminiscent of an earlier tactic engineered in 1983 when Reagan announced plans for a Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), also known as "Star Wars". The Soviets perceived it as a threat, even though the plan's feasibility and cost was widely questioned. The presence of SDI and, in hindsight, last-ditch efforts by the dying Soviet empire to show strength were a few of the reasons the agreement took nine years to ratify...

Read the rest of this article at the Commonwealth Club blog. Click here.

The Homeless Cellphone Kings?

CONSERVATIVES WANT A FOIL? CHECK OUT S.F.'S LATTE-DRINKING HOMELESS

The dust-up over the photo of Michelle Obama being photographed by a "homeless" man's cellphone reminds me of President Reagan falsely highlighting the notion of the "welfare queen".

Conservative bloggers have been merciless in poking fun at the fact that a person at a soup kitchen has a cellphone. To that, I say, is it 1995? Who doesn't have a cellphone and do any of those critics know how much a phone costs these days. Back in the early 90s, George H.W. Bush famously did not know the price of a gallon of milk. Have conservatives gone to the T-Mobile kiosk at their local mall lately? For all we know, the phone in question may be linked a billing plan suited for low-income people or more likely a pay-as-you-go type deal.

What is funny are the cracks about a homeless shelter serving mushroom risotto (in the above photo you can see the day's menu posted). Salon's Alex Koppelman didn't grasp its humor, though, sounding much like one of those liberals oblivious to jokes centered to closely to politics he wrote, "(For the record, it was actually mushroom risotto. And her nasty 'weird crap' remark? It's rice cooked in chicken stock with some vegetables, something most cultures are quite familiar with, no matter what you choose to call it. Come on.)" I love risotto. Maybe being homeless wouldn't be so bad, after all.

All I have to add to this story is that I have encountered an instance of homelessness that Bill O'Reilly would love. In November of last year, I wrote an article about a homeless woman in San Francisco named Rhonda who sat on the same spot near Market Street seemingly without notice of passing businessmen and tourists. Read the article here.

It would seem to conservative eyes that Rhonda is the richest of the poorest. On many occasions, I've seen Rhonda sitting in the nearby Starbucks sipping a venti coffee. Ah, those latte liberals, O'Reilly might scream, but how much is a regular cup of coffee at Starbucks? Two bucks. Don't tell O'Reilly about this, but if you do, the offending Starbucks is near the corner of 4th and Market and the barista is the fastest I've ever seen.

GOP's 'Obama' Falls Flat

MOST PANNED SPEECH IN 20 YEARS SETS JINDAL FOR CLINTON COMEBACK
It was ironic that during which a film set in India and partially created by Indians won the Academy Award for Best Picture while America's top Indian political figure fell flat on his face.

Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal's response to the State of the Union is the most panned high-profile political speech in 20 years. Not since then-Governor Bill Clinton droned on and on at the 1988 Democratic National Convention has the political ground shaken harder and swallowed up a rising star of the party.

Everybody on both sides of the aisle had disparaging words for Jindal's sing-song performance. He reminded me of an Indian Woody from the children's film Toy Story.

I'm your favorite deputy, Mr Limbaugh!

The numbers genius from fivethirtyeight.com Nate Silver had the night's biggest zinger when he said, "If it sounds like Jindal is targeting his speech to a room full of fourth graders, that's because he is. They might be the next people to actually vote for Republicans again."

In retrospect, MSNBC's Chris Matthews was quite prescient in uttering his audible, "Oh God" just as Jindal appeared. He apologized the next day saying he was only referring to the "stagecraft" of the speech.

In the end, the Republican Party's "Obama" crashed and burned on the national stage, but the connection to Clinton's comparable fizzle in 1988 should be examined. Both are Southern governors and highly-skilled intellectual minds. Both were anointed up-and-coming stars in their parties and possibly presidential candidates. No matter what American mythology says, there are second acts in American political life. Clinton did the talk show circuit and allowed himself to be made fun of. Four years later, the guy known for talking too much became president.

The breadth of the criticism against Jindal has been shocking. So much so, that Rush Limbaugh felt compelled to evoke Reagan's 11th Commandment--though shall not talk ill of fellow Republicans. The incongruity of the response is so evident that it should allow Jindal the ability to brush himself off and continue to burnish his credentials for a run in 2012. He could one day be the guy who use to be the guy who looked childish and dorky on national television, only to rise again.

An Election Day For The History Book

2008 ELECTION DAY PREVIEW

election'08: the race to clean the place - 1 day to go

[This election] will be remembered as the year when the not only younger people revived their interests in the issues but also first time voters. A mandate will be reached...because of this group.

These two lines appeared in LFR on November 1, 2004, on the eve of President Bush's re-election victory over Sen. John Kerry, yet they could be written in the same tone on the eve of the 2008 presidential election.

Ultimately, young voters did not respond any more disproportionately than any other election and the nation endured four more years of President Bush.

It is likely to occur again, yet because of sizable gains among white males, young voters showing up at the polls at roughly the same rate could give Sen. Barack Obama the White House.

Here's what to look for Tuesday:

McCAIN NEEDS TO WIN 5 OF 6 BATTLEGROUND STATES
Like Kerry four years ago, McCain has only a few quite iffy scenarios to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat as he said this weekend.

McCain unrealistically must win a combination of five of six battleground states that include Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Nevada, Virginia and Colorado.

Kerry needed to win Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida to beat George W. Bush. He only won the Quaker State.

OBAMA HOVERS OVER 50 PERCENT IN THE POLLS
According to data compiled by realclearpolitics.com, Obama leads in all 15 major national polls. More importantly, Obama holds a slight majority of the vote in 14 of the 15 polls, with the International Business Daily poll having him leading 48-43.

Fifty percent is the key for Obama, making any number of undecideds moving to McCain relatively moot.

PRESIDENTIAL LANDSLIDES
When it comes to election landslides it is hard to beat Reagan trouncing Walter Mondale by 18 points in 1984 and Richard Nixon laying the wood on George McGovern in 1972.

Presidential "landslide" is a relative term within politics. Where a seven point win other races might be a squeeker, the 6-7 point average margin of victory most polls show for Obama constitute a landslide.

Merely reaching 50 percent would be historical for Democrats. Obama would be the first to do so since Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932. President Clinton was stymied by third party candidate Ross Perot in 1992 and scored 49.2 of the vote against Bob Dole four years later.

OBAMA BEGINS TO NAME CABINET
Invariably as it becomes apparent Obama will be elected president, campaign staffers will begin peddling the names of possible cabinet members.

Thus far, Rep. Rahm Emmanuel, a former Clinton staffer has been mentioned as a possible Chief of Staff, while a New York magazine story quotes sources saying Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson will not be retained by Obama. In his place another former Clintonite and Harvard president Larry Summers may be summoned.

Obama may go Republican with Sen. Dick Lugar of Indiana at the state department and Colin Powell may play some role in bringing the nation's military thought process back to circa 1998.

REPUBLICANS BEGIN THE BLOODLETTING
The losing party usually brings out the knives for their guy's failed attempt at the White House. This year it could get more ugly than usual.

McCain may have religious conservatives angry he did turn towards Jesus before selecting their darling, the lovely Sarah Palin. Old time conservatives are already seething over the loss of the "real McCain", "The Maverick". Of course, this is the McCain persona those same people found incorrigible on Capitol Hill

What is likely to happen in the next few weeks is cover stories and columns showing infighting, constant bickering and a case of too many Chiefs and not enough Indians.

SENATE NEARS FILIBUSTER-PROOF
Democrats in the Senate need 60 members including Connecticut's Joe Lieberman and Vermont's Bernie Sanders in their caucus.

They appear to be falling just short of sixty with 58 looking likely. Saxby Chambliss in Georgia and Al Franken in Minnesotacould be the key for Democrats to crack a filibuster-proof 60, something a presidential has not had since President Carter in 1976.

THE RISE OF THE LATINO VOTING BLOC IN THE WEST
In 2000, Al Gore barely won New Mexico. Four years later, President Bush won it by less than one percent. In 2008, New Mexico, with a large influx on Latino voters and a Republican bent on alienating this burgeoning majority, the state is firmly blue for Obama.

The fever may be spreading. Colorado is leaning blue. So is Nevada. Most surprisingly in recent weeks, has been the movement in the electorate towards Obama in Big Sky states like Montana and North Dakota. Neither of these states are likely to turn blue in 2008, but may go the way of New Mexico in 2012.

Will McCain Bring Reaganism Down With him?

VOTERS ARE REJECTING TAX HOAXES OF THE PAST

election'08: the race to clean the place
1 day to go

Ronald Reagan has been dead four years. Is Reaganism about to near its own demise?

The signs of a final rebuke to Reaganomics, trickle down economics and the stuffing of fat cats coffers or--whatever you want to call it--may lie within the rhetoric of Joe the Plumber.

Sen. John McCain mocked the answer Sen. Barack Obama haphazardly uttered the Ohio plumber that Americans should spread the wealth. McCain not-so-subtlety labeled him a socialist, yet in times like these, the idea, in itself, that Americans should band together resonates more than continuing the same tired economic agenda of the past eight years and, by extension, the past 28.

An article in today's Boston Globe lays out the five questions the election may say about Americans, with number one contemplating an end to the Reagan Revolution.

During the heyday of the Democrats' New Deal coalition, which dominated politics from 1932 until 1980, the idea of spreading the wealth around was hardly political poison - it was the backbone of the party's economic philosophy. Since 1980 and the "Reagan Revolution," however, using tax policies to redistribute income has been widely viewed as an outmoded approach that chokes off economic growth.

Bob Schrum, the Democratic strategist and architect of Al Gore and John Kerry's losing presidential bids, also writes in The Week about the fall of Reaganism.

It is no longer enough to utter conservative epithets like “liberal” and “tax.” McCain’s implication that Obama wants to “spread the wealth” around rather than create wealth is dissonant at a time when Republicans are presiding over the greatest wealth destruction in history. Meantime, Obama has brilliantly pounded two numbers into the national consciousness—$250,000 (you don’t face a tax increase if you earn less) and 95 percent (the percentage of Americans who will receive a tax cut under Obama’s proposal).

Shrum smartly cautions Republicans to not merely mimic Democratic, but to rethink what conservatism means. He continues by saying the GOP can either do this or simply repackage the same product around Sarah Palin in 2012.

This choice, of course, will depend on the size of the drubbing in the House and Senate more than the likely loss of the White House.

If, indeed, the era of redistributing wealth toward the rich is over, it should be natural to assume an age of redistribution back to the middle and lower class is imminent. Some call it a new age of Progressivism.

In any case, it could be the aspect of the possible Obama presidency that surprise many moderates and independents who vote for him tomorrow--he really is a liberal!

Voters Becoming More Comfortable With President Obama

UNDECIDED VOTERS ARE SHRINKING; MOVING TO OBAMA

Many have made allusions duringthis election to 1980. Back then, the country was concerned whether to hand Oval Office to Ronald Reagan. Although, he was the governor of California, the perception that this Western cowboy, former Hollywood movie star would make a good president was something Americans had to get comfortable with.

PHOTO COLLAGE/HUFFINGTON POST

Twenty-eight years later, Sen. Barack Obama is facing the same questions. He's too young, too inexperienced, too black(?). Like Reagan in 1980, voters may have forged a comfort level late in the campaign with the young Illinois senator that may clinch victory next month.

A new Washington Post poll reveals some poignant numbers that seem to point to this fact. Among the tidbits:

• Obama numbers now equal McCain's on which candidate's economic plan will lower their taxes.
• The number of undecided voters has shrunk to 13 percent.
• Two-thirds of voters who rank the economy as the country's biggest problem side with Obama.

Most importantly, it seems the low-key and confident demeanor of Obama during the debates as opposed to McCain's sometime huffing and puffing and doddering strolls around the stage have eased voter anxieties about the candidate. The question is, "could they be comfortable with Obama in the White House?" The answer is increasingly looking like, yes.

Nearly two-thirds of voters, 64 percent, now view Obama favorably, up six percentage points from early September. About a third of voters have a better opinion of the senator from Illinois because of his debate performances, while 8 percent have a lower opinion of him. By contrast, more than a quarter said they think worse of McCain as a result of the debates, more than double the proportion saying their opinion had improved.

Forget that Obama is now consistently polling in the low 50 percent range, roughly 10 points up on McCain. It's still too early to extrapolate national numbers when the electoral college may be out of whack in Obama's favor with the actual vote tally.

It is notable that the number of undecided voters is shrinking, though. With fewer "movable" voters, the less likely wild fluctuations in the polls will occur. Certainly bad news for McCain as he attempts to find an issue to sway voters.

Pundits after two presidential debates and one VP debate consistently said the interactions would do little to break open the race. Those pundits are usually wrong.

Taken with the pretext that a clear winner would be called on the presumption that the other would massively flub a line, breakdown in tears or bleed from the eyes and ears, there could not possibly be a winner.

Pundits pontificate, voters vote.

Obama is exciting, exotic, a brilliant orator and calming figure. It's not that he's a biracial candidate (this is the correct term), but seemingly too good to be true. When McCain referred to him as "that one", Obama's reaction was, literally, no reaction.

It's becoming more clear, that the voter's reaction is something quite the opposite.

For Obama: Don't Mess Up; McCain: Be Nice

PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE PREVIEW

Let's assume John McCain decides to debate tomorrow. Assume that he won't be the kid who doesn't study for the big test and has been covertly practicing his laugh lines undercover.

The twist on whether this debate will occur Friday at 6 p.m. pacific is the attention it has built. The nation's focus on this election is frenetic. The controversy over McCain's gamesmanship could make this one of the most watched presidential debates ever.

Here's what viewers should look for during tomorrow's debate in Oxford, Miss.:

1. Make Obama mad.
Make no mistake about it, Obama has a large ego. His oratory brilliance is based upon his comfort in speaking rhetorically. Have you ever chatted with a college professor? No matter your expertise on the subject, you will always leave feeling less sure about your opinions. The McCain campaigns highlighting of this fact is fair and will try to exploit his air of superiority.

James Fallows, writing in The Atlantic, watched on this year's primary debates in one whole week. He lives in China and for readers of the magazine, his numerous features on China have made The Atlantic seem more like The South China Sea Monthly. Here he describes Obama's irritability when questioned:

Obama “is vain about his idealism and ‘nobility,’” a staff member for one of Obama’s Democratic opponents (not Clinton) told me on the phone. “He is thin-skinned about having his motives and competence questioned, so that’s what you do.”...Obama may still be innocent enough to be shaken by it. McCain made many dismissive references to Obama after Obama became the presumptive nominee. The easy next step is to do so while looking at him.

An article posted this week on WSJ.com quotes a McCain staffer that says the candidate will be looking for certain keywords in Obama's speech that could be exploited.

Advisers have told Sen. McCain to watch out when Sen. Obama uses the phrase, 'As I've said before...' One McCain adviser said it is used 'when Obama actually changes his position, to pretend it's what he's always said.'

The article also gives Obama specific tips for winning the debate. Three of the fear tips highlight things Obama should not do. Usually the candidate ahead in the polls, as Obama is, merely needs to play defensive and "not lose" to win.

• Don't act like a professor
• Don't ramble on both sides of a question
• Don't use sarcasm or flip answers that could be misinterpreted.
• Show your passion

2. Make McCain Old And Grumpy
It's no secret that McCain's temper is legendary on Capitol Hill. In Bob Woodward's recent book on the Bush White House McCain is quoted using quite salty language that falls just short of the king of presidential pottymouths, Richard Nixon.

You can assume McCain will be on his finest manners Friday night although, as mentioned in an earlier post, the lopotomy given to McCain's vivid personality has also made him less adventurous and adroit in public. Sort of like they gave him a Zanax to cool it down.

The aspect of this debate that neither can candidate can control is how the youthful Obama contrasts on high-def with the 72-year-old McCain. It may not be a slip of the tongue that causes viewers to see McCain as old and crotchety, but his natual appearance.

Fallows attempted to relate this point to Ronald Reagan and Walter Mondale in 1984.

He will look and sound old and weak next to Obama. Ronald Reagan was about McCain’s current age when he ran for reelection against Walter Mondale, but Reagan looked 10 years younger than McCain does now. Obama is 10 years younger than Mondale was and looks younger still. McCain must hope that he can apply a version of Reagan’s line about his opponent’s “youth and inexperience.” But lacking Reagan’s outward haleness, he risks coming across like Dole against Clinton.

Here's what the Wall Street Journal says McCain needs to do to win:

• Stop saying, "My friends". It's a verbal crutch destined for a drinking game.
• Just because he doesn't know something, it's not neccesary to point it out so bluntly.
• Without much practice, he might be nervous, don't let that be interpreted as "testy".

3. Win The Expectations Game
The Great Debater, George W. Bush, "won" a majority of his debates against Al Gore and John Kerry based on this premise. The Obama campaign is wise to this as evidenced by a quote in today's USA Today that says McCain has the edge in the first debate that deals with foreign policy.

It will be hard for the Obama people to blunt the perception that their candidate is the far superior statesman even though, while he has improved significantly in the format, it is not his most impressive talent.

What could happen is Obama could raise expectations if he is able to relax and fight. For a frontrunner this could be risky and could also knockout a teetering McCain. Fallows looked closely at Obama's 2004 Senate debate with conservative Alan Keyes. While the dorky Keyes was nothing but a warm body for the GOP, the Obama of 2004 was an attack dog, throwing biting one-liners and totally within is own comfort zone.

The Obama of the presidential debates seemed to be enduring the sessions; the Obama who took on Alan Keyes seemed to be having fun. When attacking Keyes’s background and ideas, which he did frequently, he sounded wry rather than ponderous or angry. He didn’t seem to mind needling or attacking Keyes, or seem upset when Keyes attacked.

Of course, what either candidate has to say and how they say it will be important, but many times these debates are won and loss on the public's perception and how well or badly each candidate gives credence to certain prevailing wisdom--Obama that he's "uppity" and McCain that he's old.