THE FAITH FORUM
I normally don’t post twice in the same weekend, but this time I must. I don’t know how many of you watched last night’s forum hosted by Pastor Rick Warren, but if you didn’t, please read this carefully and consider taking these points to heart:
First, as I said yesterday, this election is FAR from over. Those Democrats who assess Barack’s political talent well above McCain’s fail to recognize that Barack is still learning his trade. In light of his inexperience as a politician, this can yet become a dog-fight
Second, when Barack and McCain are giving speeches, the disparity in skill level is indeed mind-blowing. Barack is a brilliant orator. McCain is marginally competent at best. I mention this disparity in part because oratorical skills are extremely important for Presidents who hope to be inspirational leaders. So, too, is the ability to put together and oversee an excellent organization. For those reasons, among others, I suspect that Barack would make an infinitely better President than McCain. But … the issue of the moment isn’t who would make a better President; it’s who is more electable. There, as I indicated above, the call may become a close one.
3. In town-hall meetings – and last night’s meeting was almost like a town-hall meeting because there were no follow-up questions and essentially no rules as to how, and for how long, to respond to the questions – McCain has some definite advantages: (a) McCain tells stories and, in doing so, draws from 70 plus years of experience and a wellspring of accomplishments. Barack, by contrast, speaks a bit like an academic. By that I mean that he answers questions thoughtfully, relatively directly, and attempts to “instruct” us on his positions. Many people will prefer this latter approach, but I suspect it is less effective for the “swing-voters.” (b) Barack enters into an I-Thou relationship with the questioners … he faces the questioners, responds to them directly, and acts like he owes them personally an answer that is authentic and relatively complete. McCain, by contrast, processes the question, tersely and viscerally responds to it, and then quickly goes into stump-speech mode, which, as I indicated, often amounts to story-telling. Again, advantage McCain. What matters isn’t whether the questioner likes the answer but whether the swing-voters at home like the answer. (c) McCain is invoking a familiar archetype of the white, male, experienced, conservative, patriotic, God-fearing American statesman. Barack is trying to be a 21st century, third-way kind of politician. Unless Barack can get Americans affirmatively to distrust McCain as a person, or at least to distrust whether McCain is right for his times, McCain’s the one who is farming in a proven-fertile field.
The upshot of this isn’t much different than what I said yesterday, but my point was graphically illustrated by last night’s forum. Barack can’t simply run-out-the-clock on McCain like he did on Hillary during the final couple of months of the campaign. He must take some chances and show America why it REALLY doesn’t want McCain, not merely why it wants Barack.
It shouldn’t be that hard to expose McCain as wrong for his times. Listening to McCain talk about foreign policy last night was a perfect example of his vulnerability. McCain analyzes overseas issues like a ten year old. In his comic-strip world, there are heroes (like the leader of Georgia, who McCain extolled, even though his screw up is partially responsible for the violence with Russia) and villains (Putin, Saddam, etc.). Coming across less as a Christian than as a Manichaean, McCain suggests that our job – as the superheroes of the world – are to defeat evil every time it manifests itself. So we can spend a trillion plus dollars and many thousand lives on Iraq based on a justification that turned out to be a mistake, and then brag about it for years on end. And we feel obliged to wax eloquent about “following Osama to the gates of hell” even when, in truth, we strangely let him elude our grasp and don’t seem able to look for him.
To be sure, you don’t hear much from the media about McCain’s weaknesses on foreign policy. But believe me, they’re out there, just waiting to be exposed for everyone to see.
In short, John McCain, far from acting like the senile idiot so many Democrats make him out to be seemed last night like someone who could very easily be elected President. To defeat him, his downside must be made manifest to the swing voters who don’t read the Huffington Post or watch the Daily Show. Fortunately for Obama, McCain has serious problems – this man, who never bothered to take his studies seriously in college and frequently as an adult has been unable to control his temper, now, in his old age, appears to be influenced more by Superman and Batman (or is it Whack a Mole?) than by the great works of political theory. That’s the last person in the world you’d like to have ruling our military.
Are you going to expose him, Barack? Or are you going to play three-yards-and-a-cloud of dust and pray for luck at the polls? That’s pretty much your choice.
13 comments:
Danny Boy
Stop using the conditional. May is now is.
And academics are not sui generis superior although they effetely believe such to be so. We dont want uppity hubris in office whether it be McGovern (Barry the second coming 36 years later), Carter, Bush I, Kerry, or Gore. Your candidate is too far left on so many issues, affects the pompously superior attitude of the acadamy, and is just plain not likeable. Like you, how much has he earned meeting a payroll? (Answer: Bupkis).
The rock star shine has faded away.
Thats why your man is likely to lose in November...and if it werent for Bush II of the last 4 years, your man wouldn't even have a chance....its only because George and K Street were so egregiously rotten that candidate is seen as anything but the fringe marginalia that he truly is.
Besides booby, I cant believe u wouldn't want to elect a man who can better stand up to Czar Vlad I, who is in the mold of Nicky who chased our fathers families out of the shehtls over 100 years ago.
You seem to want to see this election play out like a sports event. First, it's a boxing match--who can jab, who can take a punch, who can land one. Then it's a horse race, guided by polls who show that Barack is behind and must come from the rear.
The "winner" of that religious forum was already known before it started. Barack simply thought about the questions and gave his response with studied, intelligent answers. I'm sorry, but the audience in that hall wanted the pat answers their religion gives them and they couldn't fathom anyone saying that a person's rights may or may not begin at the moment of conception, that this is a complex issue that greater philosophical minds than mine (or Barack's) have not yet settled. They were stunned to hear, "That's not in my pay scale to know."
It was an odd turn of phrase, as a matter of fact, but not atypical of our man. You and I know what he meant, but the group in that hall probably didn't.
I don't know whether or not he will win. I know the country has let me down many a time -- Adlai Stevenson, George McGovern, and maybe Barack Obama. But we'll get the President we deserve, and let's hope it's not that pitiful shell of a man with nothing but war stories to fall back on and a weird grimace that passes for a smile. Let us hope that it's not because Barack Obama is not combative or belligerent or hateful enough to bludgeon the old geezer with his disdain, his vigor, or his superior intellect. Let's hope it's because all those people who flock to hear him wherever he goes are smart enough to find the polling places and exercise their better nature by actually voting for the right man, because they believe what he says and trust him to do a better job than we have have any reason to expect anybody to do based on the work of the occupants of the oval office for the last seven terms.
Well, YoungMan, I hold no brief for Mr. Putin. The whole situation reminded me of the Rodney King mess with Putin playing the role of the LAPD. But dealing with this kind of situation is tricky, and the GOP leaders might want to think twice before they get our collective weenies stuck in our zippers.
Going into Iraq was a horrible blunder. Barack had the good sense to oppose that. McCain was a cheerleader. That remains a big point for me, and it carries over to tricky situations like the one in Georgia.
Speaking of which, if you want to be horrified, google "Merkley talks about Georgia." This is the guy that beat my friend Novick. I could have punched the computer screen when I saw that video.
Finally, you lose your credibility when you accuse Barack of not being likeable. I don't know what sort of chip you are carrying on your shoulder not to like him, but it must be a rather large one. Even most conservatives like his personality.
Mary Lois,
Believe me, it's not that I "want" it to be a sporting event. It simply "is" a sporting event -- and a contact sport at that. The sooner the Democrats realize that, the sooner they'll stop losing Presidential elections with regularity.
This is Barack's election to lose, but he has to take some shots (i.e., chances ... roundhouse rights ... long passes, pick your metaphor) if he wants to close the deal. We can lament the sorry state of American politics all we want after November, but this election, we simply can't afford to do that. We have to fight to win.
If you don't like the boxing metaphors, use the football metaphors. If you don't like the football metaphors ... try another competitive activity in which brains, toughness, and courage are at a premium (the other side would add "ruthlessness," but I'm not quite that cynical). I think we both know that American elections are most certainly NOT competitions about authentic rationalism or empathy. We've had neither the electorate, nor the media, nor the candidates to make it so.
Mary Lois,
Let me add that my assessment of the performances last night has nothing to do with the audience's reaction or the views of the "experts" today. I called it as I saw it -- for most mainstream American audiences, McCain's style would seem to be more effective for that format.
The "pay grade" comment didn't bother me. I was more bothered by the idea that the only example he gave of bucking his own party was the one where, for a short period of time, he worked with McCain. I didn't think that question was such an obscure one, and it apparently caught him off guard. In any event, I was evaluating the debate on substance so much as style, which unfortunately is what will matter most over the next several weeks.
Folks...
The Most Effete Almost Always Loses...whether its Republican or Democrat. There have been a couple of elections where the effete scale has been close...but since 1980 its been an unfailing predictor of victory, and really almost all the way back to 1944. And yes Obama (D) Illinois=Stevenson (D) Illinois.
Judged by Effete Superciliousness
1944 Roosevelt=Dewey
1948 Truman<<<<< Dewey
1952 Eisenhower<<<<<<< Stevenson
1956 Ditto
1960 Kennedy> Nixon (Nixon Blew that one)
1964 Johnson=Goldwater (I'd actually have to say Goldwater was the more effete, but who was ever more barnyard than LBJ)
1968 Nixon=Humphrey
1972 Nixon< McGovern
1976 Carter< Ford (if Not for Nixon, this election easily goes the other way, proving my contention why the current election (2008) wouldnt even be close if not for Bush II)
1980 Reagan <<<<<< Carter
1984 Reagan << Mondale
1988 Bush I < Dukakis (Scary that anyone could make Bush I look less effete)
1992 Clinton <<< Bush I
1996 Clinton=Dole
2000 Bush II <<< Gore
2004 Bush II <<<< Heinz-Kerry
2008 McCain <<<<<<<<< Obama
I know u intellectual hybrid driving chablis sippers want to think differently, but it really comes down to the fact that your man can't bowl, won't hunt, and won't do shots. Most of the American public don't trust anyone who won't no matter how well he plays at the Tiergarten.
Oh also, everyone, Barack had such weighty things to think about in the Illinois State Senate six years ago.....pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeeze.
I respect your fist on Merkeley talks about Georgia. Even though I would never vote for Steve, I know he is a man of his misguided principles.
Youngman
The only people who were watching it were us and the Religious Right who only wanted McCain to make his case that "It begins at conception." I thought McCain outdid Obama very neatly. But I don't think it's going to matter much in the general election.
Oh, and when I talk about having been disappointed in previous elections, I forgot to mention the name of Eugene McCarthy, another gentleman who didn't get very far in the great sporting event that is a U.S. Presidential election.
McCain=Obama in Ohio now.....I hear the retreat lament already :)
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.
Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
Gotta get down to it
Soldiers are cutting us down
Should have been done long ago.
What if you knew her
And found her dead on the ground
How can you run when you know?
Tin soldiers and Nixon coming,
We're finally on our own.
This summer I hear the drumming,
Four dead in Ohio.
YoungMan, it's not just that Steve is a man of his principles. It's that he is addicted to newspaper reading.
But seriously, if you're put off by Obama, you really ought to work on that. Say what you want to about his politics, but he comes across as a genuinely good person. I'm still shaking my head at the idea that he isn't "likeable." That has to be a hang-up you have about so-called "intellectuals."
If I told you that I've spent the day alternating between watching the Olympics and reading Heidegger, would that make me less likeable than if I had been reading, say, Hemingway? Stop that bias.
Mary Lois,
You are right that Obama had impeccable timing. McCain's big night coincided with Phelps' eighth gold. That's not exactly the best time to be on his game. And more to the point, it signaled to Barack's people what he must do differently during the debates (e.g., focus on the audience and not the questioner).
Still, last night pointed out vividly that this thing ain't over yet. Barack probably knows that intellectually, but is he willing to take risks on the chance that if they pan out, he can break this thing wide open? The jury is still out on that one.
Youngman,
I wouldn't attach so much significance to a point here and a point there in August. The dynamics will change significantly in this race once the debates start and the October ads (and counter ads) are aired. Novick was ahead in the polls right before the election. As long as it's close -- as it was in his case -- it's unpredictable.
Heidegger supericiliously effete >>>>>>>> Hemingway. Nuanced prose against terse vividness.
Sorry Danny, I prefer it and so do the American people. That's why u'll lose.
QED Thanks for hoisting yourself by your own petard.
Big Papa hunted, fished, and fought bulls. Something the Deerhunters in Uniontown, PA can related to.....rather than the chablis and argula sandwich Barry chomped on before his 36.
C'mon Danny, even u can bowl better than a 36......
Youngman
Youngman, since Heidegger was briefly (for about 9 months) a member of the Nazi party, I figured he might score some points with you on the macho scale. Guess not.
Seriously, you are referring only to one group of Americans when you talk about the macho values. There are plenty of others. It's entirely possible that this election will come down to Barack's ability to woo Hillary's legions of women supporters. I have no idea whether he will be successful at this point. The concessions he is making with respect to the Convention certainly have my head shaking, but I wouldn't be surprised if they are necessary and prudent as a means of getting Hillary to get off her butt and participate in this campaign. So far, she's been as lame a campaigner (for Barack) as lame can be.
Post a Comment