John McCain is often praised for his ability to reach across party lines and work with Democrats. Much to the chagrin of his fellow Republicans, his famous temper is usually reserved for members of his own party while he disagrees politely with his Democratic counterparts. That is all well and good, but if McCain thinks he can win this election by playing nice and speaking in empty platitudes about change and bi-partisanship he is going to lose. McCain needs to move past his obsession with getting along with the other side all the time, realize that he is now the standard bearer of the party, and get to work taking Obama to task on the numerous points where his soaring rhetoric does not match his policies or voting record. Here are a few places he could start:
“A New Kind of Politics”:
Sen. Obama often speaks about the new kind of politics which he would bring about. Yet, from the small sample available, his voting record would seem to indicate that he is among the most calculating of politicians on the national scene. Time and again in the Illinois legislature he voted “present,” rather than yes or no, on the most searching, politically difficult votes he was asked to make. He might as well have voted “absent.” Why should Americans trust Sen. Obama to make the hard decisions as president when he has declined to do so so frequently throughout his career thus far? And doesn’t this sort of dubiety about taking a stand on key issues directly refute his claims to represent a break from the Clintonian politics of the past 15 years?
Education:
Sen. Obama has constantly spoken of the need for change without identifying precisely where such change might be needed except with regard to the political process itself. Education, however, is an issue where a sharp break with the past is needed. America has trusted competition, that most American of institutions, to invigorate and drive everything from our economy to our elections. We know that competition results in better products and higher efficiency. Why should our public schools, which Sen. Obama himself describes on his website as “failing,” be immune from the searching tests which come with free and fair competition? Voucher programs would force public schools to compete for funds by hiring better teachers and incentivizing excellence. Shouldn’t we structure the incentives of our shool system to actually promote learning? McCain should make Sen. Obama defend our decrepid education system and the overbearing, overpowerful teachers unions who keep it broken.
Iraq:
Sen. Obama constantly remarks that this election is a time to look forward rather than backward. Yet every time he addresses the issue of Iraq he begins by reminding everyone that he opposed the war 5 years ago and that the invasion never should have been undertaken. True or not, the point is irrelevant. McCain needs to make sure Obama doesn’t skate on the issue by simply re-hashing a debate we had in 2003 with the benefit of hindsight. McCain should force Obama to acknowledge the undeniable success of the surge and put his feet to the fire on whether or not he really thinks the time to withdraw is just when Al Qaeda is on the ropes and the Sunnis have joined us in our campaign against AQI.
It looks like the McCain campaign has succeeded in baiting Sen. Obama into a series of town hall meetings. That is good news. Sen. McCain is terrible in set speeches and great at town halls. Yet the opportunity will be wasted unless he makes Obama abandon the rhetoric which has carried him thus far and force him to address the policies which an Obama adminstration would pursue.
12 responses so far ↓
1 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Jun 5, 2008 at 8:12 pm
While Iraq and school vouchers are legitimate and important issues that the candidates should discuss, Obama’s present votes are simply not. Voting “present” is a very common legislative strategy in the Illinois Senate, with a number
of valid reasons why.
Instead, we should be looking at voting records on the issues that matter - the Bush tax cuts, for example. McCain originally voted against them, but now favors making them permanent. I’d like to see the candidates have a substantive discussion on tax cuts, just like they should discuss education policy and foreign policy in the Middle East.
2 test » Blog Archive » For McCain, Time to Pick a Fight () // Jun 5, 2008 at 8:44 pm
[...] Eric Sedler wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptJohn McCain is often praised for his ability to reach across party lines and work with Democrats. Much to the chagrin of his fellow Republicans, his famous temper is usually reserved for members of his own party while he disagrees … Read the rest of this great post here [...]
3 For McCain, Time to Pick a Fight () // Jun 5, 2008 at 8:48 pm
[...] Continue Reading [...]
4 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Jun 6, 2008 at 12:24 am
Dave, I agree with you that his present votes are common. But does Obama claim to be a common politician? Or someone who is going to change politics as we know it? My point is that McCain needs to take the shine off Obama’s promises to change everything by showing that he is a normal politician, cut from the same cloth as the rest of his generation.
5 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Jun 6, 2008 at 12:27 am
Also, do note the sources he cites on his website as he seeks to explain the “present” votes. All from liberal groups or Obama himself and they do not actually explain if the practice is common or excusable.
6 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Jun 6, 2008 at 12:39 am
Your right about tax cuts also, what line will Obama take on tax cuts? His website seems to suggest that he would favor shifting the tax cuts from income and capital gains tax cuts to pay roll tax cuts which would favor workers who don’t own stocks but it is hard to tell for sure. I imagine that would be a winner. What are your thoughts? Certainly he can’t come out against the Bush tax cuts without proposing some kind of parallel reduction in exchange right?
7 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Jun 6, 2008 at 1:35 am
I guess if present votes are common, then Obama would conform to the ordinary on that practice. But I’m not convinced that simply voting yes or no is superior in any sense. I don’t think McCain will attack him too much on it; it’s rather silly compared to the far more important things at stake.
As for the sources, note the date the document was written - January 28, 2008. This was in the midst of Clinton’s attack on Obama’s support for women’s reproductive rights (he voted present on an abortion bill as part of a Planned Parenthood strategy). So it’s understandable that they would cite a Planned Parenthood official to respond to that attack. But I’m sure you’d easily be able to find independent sources to corroborate that present votes are a part of Illinois Senate culture.
I find bullet point number 6 especially appealing - voting present when he believed the bill to be unconstitutional. Imagine having a President with experience teaching Constitutional Law at one of the top (and conservative) law schools in the country - and willing to take a stand when he analyzes that to be the case.
As for tax policy, my understanding is that Obama will eliminate the tax cuts for the richest 1% but “provide a tax cut for working families.” I’m no expert - afraid I can’t really elaborate more on that. I do know that he’s got a great team of economists on board - led by esteemed “centrist” Austan Goolsbee. I think we can all agree that the country is served when politicians listen to the experts and I hope that if Obama and McCain fail to discuss tax policy, at least their economic advisors would.
8 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Jun 6, 2008 at 12:27 pm
Independent sources seem rather divided Dave, this piece from the Herald Trib both notes that it is a common practice but also that Obama used it more than others, particularly on the hardest votes: http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/12/20/america/20obama.php
I agree that there are far more important things at stake, but one of the planks of Obama’s campaign has been this canard that he is somehow different, above the political squabbling and pettiness of his counterparts. This is simply not the case and McCain needs to lay this nonsense to rest.
Also, I can’t believe that you would be satisfied with a “present” vote if Obama thought the bill was unconstitutional. If he was convinced a bill was unconstitutional he should have voted no.
9 Dave Ullman (dullman10) // Jun 6, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Voting no and voting present have the same outcome - the bill doesn’t get enough yes votes to pass. They are in practice the same thing. Thus, voting “present” would simply be a way to indicate your particular stance (i.e., the bill may have beneficial outcomes but fails a constitutionality test).
10 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Jun 6, 2008 at 2:48 pm
If a bill were unconstitutional I would expect a good representative to vote no and then explain his or her concerns. Especially if that representative aspires to change politics as we know it. Employing clever legislative tricks to avoid voting yes or no is hardly what one would expect from a polician heralding the beginning of a new kind of politics. If Obama would simply drop that part of his pitch we could move past this, but until he acknowledges that he is not above the fray McCain needs to point out that he is just another pol.
11 eschulwolf10 (eschulwolf10) // Jun 12, 2008 at 2:42 am
I’m not sure if challenging Obama on the success of the surge is a winning strategy for John McCain. I was recently reading a CBS News poll, and I noticed that, in nine months, the view of the American public has remained largely negative toward the current state of affairs in Iraq. 60 % currently say things are going badly there, versus 35 % who think its going well. This compared to 63-34 % last September. I think there are valid reasons for the public disillusionment with the surge and the war, despite the military success of the former. Basically, while the surge has undeniably been a tactical victory, insofar as it’s put AQI on the defensive, it seems to have had a limited effect toward achieving the larger goal of letting us leave the country with a relatively stable, more-or-less democratic government in our wake. While the surge may have brought the Sunnis on board with us militarily, it hasn’t led to any real progress toward crafting a compromise arrangement between the Sunni Arabs, Shia Arabs and Kurds on key issues such as oil revenue sharing and federalism. Without agreement on those things, no long-term arrangement will be stable. Similarly, even as the Sunnis are cooperating with us, they aren’t cooperating with the Kurds and Shiites. The “Sons of Iraq” operate independently from the Iraqi government, and their salaries are paid by us, not by their home country. Its hard for me to accept that we’re building towards a sustainable, long-term multi-ethnic governing arrangement when we’re building up an all Sunni military force that is separate from the Iraqi Army and other security institutions of the state that we’re trying to build. It’s unclear to me how we’re going to gradually Iraq-ize the conflict when we are moving towards creating three military forces - a Shi’a led official military, Kurdish pesh merga units, and nascent, American funded Sunni militias.
I don’t think Obama’s 16 month timetable is realistic, but I don’t think the American people have any more patience for McCain’s approach, which seems to offer nothing more than more fighting, with no strategy for achieving ultimate victory. Hell, I don’t even know what constitutes a victory for hard-liners like McCain and Joe Lieberman. Every terrorist in Iraq dead? American/West European style democracy? It’s all very vague. Obama, at least, offers some sort of an endgame, and a way of getting there. Creating some sort of federalist structure with a reasonably stable approach to oil profit sharing is the best we can hope for under the circumstances, and the best way of getting there is to remind Iraq’s ethnic and sectarian groups that the US will not be there indefinitely, forcing them to deal with each other. It is important to begin to withdraw American soldiers, in order to get the Iraqi military ready to re-assume the defense functions of a sovereign state, and to engage other nations in the region, especially Saudi Arabia, Syria, and Iran, in order to create a stable international environment into which a newly independent Iraq can enter. So I don’t think Obama needs to admit that the surge was a success. I think McCain needs to show how, exactly, it’s led to significant progress toward the long-term goal of getting out of the country while fixing the mess that we created when we went in. Just having more boots on the ground won’t lead to success in Iraq, where the crucial struggle will take place in the political and diplomatic realms.
12 Sam Rudman (srudman09) // Jun 12, 2008 at 8:44 pm
Hello Eric,
I feel like we have had this conversation before, probably because we have. I think I agree with many of your premises but disagree with your take on the facts or the relationship between the different dynamics of the conflict.
For instance if the US were creating fully segragated ethnic military arrangements for Sunnis, Shia’s and Kurds that would be a real problem. But in the last round of Petraeus hearings he specifically addressed this issue and insisited that in many cases the Iraqi Army was integrated and that integrated units were functioning effectively in combat in certain cases. I suspect that the Kurds will have separate arrangements since their relationship to the rest of Iraq has always been ambiguous, at least since the first Gulf War and the advent of the No Fly Zone in the North.
I also think you are a little too dubious about the effect of “just having more boots on the ground.” Iraq will ultimately need a political solution based on sunni-shia reconciliation, but a stable, safe environment is a sine qua non for any prospect of success on that front. We need to win the war militarily before we can do the hard political work on the diplomatic front. We are now winning that war, and the New York Times had previously reported that we were making strides on the political front, I think put the link on my blog in a previous post about Iraq. I agree there is more work left to do, but I think we are moving in the right direction and the alternative to a sustained effort, a hasty withdrawal, would allow Al Qaeda to claim a victory we are now within reach of definitively denying them.
As to the poll numbers, I think the key for McCain is to force Obama to acknowledge that the surge has reduced casualties, stabilized the country, and put enormous pressure on Al Qaeda, from there he should force Obama to articulate why, after 5 long years, we should not give the Iraqis the chance to reach an agreement in a secure environment.
This was written in great haste as I am busy preparing, emotionally, for game 4 of the NBA final. I apologize for any typos.
BEAT LA!
You must log in to post a comment.