Posted on 09/29/2008 10:01:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet
John McCain isn't dead in the water. But he sure is dying. He lost the debate and the polls are dismal. Gallup has him down 50-42. Rasmussen has Obama ahead 50-44. And both polls are only partially after the debate. Obama won the debate. When the polls come in fully after the debate, the picture won't get any prettier for those of us who favor McCain.
His gambit of suspending his campaign and going to Washington has failed because he did not think it through adequately or correlate it with what was happening in Congress. The Republicans teed up a perfect shot for him. He took the bat but went back to the dugout without even swinging. McCain should have gone into the debate challenging Obama on his $700 billion taxpayer bailout of financial institutions. He should have pushed the Republican alternative. He could have said, plain and simple, that Obama wants to make Americans pay for $700 billion in bad mortgages and McCain wants to make businesses pay for their own bailout through loans and insurance premiums. It would have been a straight shot. But McCain copped out and mumbled something about the deal being the "end of the beginning" and said he hoped to vote for the bailout. It was a failure that may have cost him his best shot at the presidency.
But not his only shot. McCain can still win.
He needs to deploy the tax issue. His campaign has to stop the scattershot web ads and focus instead on a sustained attack on Obama's plans for tax increases. Stop the pinpricks and go for the jugular. It is only through the tax issue that McCain can win this campaign.
Voters understand that our economy is vulnerable and teetering on the brink of a black hole. McCain needs to capitalize on this new sense of vulnerability and hammer away at the Obama tax proposals. He needs to say that our system is starving for capital. Raising capital gains taxes, much less doubling it as Obama proposed during the primaries (but now is trying to backtrack), is like taxing water in the desert. McCain has to talk about Obama's spending proposals and mock the idea that he can spend a trillion and still give "95% of Americans" a tax increase.
McCain should take a page out of the playbook of the endgame of the Bush 1992 campaign. With Bill Clinton holding a solid lead, Bush was reluctant to attack him for his record of tax increases, especially given his violation of his 1988 "read my lips" pledge not to raise taxes. So the campaign sent Vice President Dan Quayle out to attack Clinton, day after day, for raising taxes. And the results were clear in the polls. Bush gained each day and, four days before Election Day, Bush took a lead over Clinton in the tracking polls. Clinton was saved by the announcement by Iran Contra Special Prosecutor Lawrence Walsh that he was planning to indict Cap Weinberger, Bush's Defense Secretary. Clinton surged ahead and won the election. But the tax issue had almost reversed his lead in the polls.
If McCain pounds away at taxes, taxes, taxes he can still win this election. By tying the Obama tax plans to the possibility of massive depression, he can pull this out.
Remember: Whenever we raised taxes amidst a downturn, we triggered a massive falloff. It was the tax increases of the early 30s that worsened the Great Depression and it was Bush's 1990 tax increase that created the 1991 recession that cost him his job. America understands that we can't raise taxes now. American grasps that Obama will not just raise taxes on a handful of rich people but will raise them on everybody. And we understand that Obama has no real answer to this charge. McCain just needs to begin to make this central attack his campaign theme from now on.
For whatever it's worth?
You're right.
Dick is obviously schizophrenic and needs help.
I can’t believe that after the “I’ve got a bracelet too” routine anyone could feel BO won the debate. That should have been a big enough turn off. In 2008 our media has trained most of the electorate that this callousness towards our volunteers who have given the ultimate sacrifice is acceptable.
Morris is pretty much in retirement now and trying to keep his taxes low on investments and earnings. Why do people keep publishing his stuff as though it’s political advice?
“Poor Sarah Palin. What a mistake she made by alligning herself with this fool.”
I don’t know that it’s that drastic and final yet, but I posted here a few times that it might not be a good move for Palin or Jindal to associate themselves with McCain. It could end their possibilities in national politics rather than boost them.
I called his suspension of the campaign last week showboating and it looks more and more like that was the case, despite the many attempts at spin. He didn’t do a damned thing he couldn’t have done without all the concocted drama and showboating.
Maybe things will turn around, but who ever thought McCain was the best candidate? A good candidate would have destroyed this poser named Obama. He’s the most unqualified candidate in decades, but McCain isn’t much better.
Bush pulled ahead of Clinton at one point in 1992? I do not remember that at all. It did get a little close in the final days but I can’t recall a single poll showing Clinton behind. I would like to hear Dick’s sources on that. Maybe it was the candidates’ own inside polling. Does he think Bush would have won had it not been for the Weinberger indictment? Hard to believe that many millions of votes would have turned around but I guess it is possible. Some of Clinton’s states, including OH, were close wins.
Unfortunately this campaign has kind of a 1992 feel to it. The media are creating that feeling of inevitability for their golden child 0bama. Now the electorate is even more dumbed down and willing to accept the nice sounding platitudes. It’s not only discouraging for this election. It should make us very fearful for the future of our nation when people make their decisions based on emotion and vapid sound bites.
I hate to disagree with tricky Dick (actually no I don’t) but McCain did not lose that debate. I stopped reading there.
Unleash the Pit Bull!...
...I keep seeing this sentiment being tossed about by conservatives...exactly what does that entail? What exactly is unleashing Palin going to do? What does it even mean? Sure, any politician would love to make controversial remarks, but such action would redound to that person’s detriment...especially in Palin’s case, being such a newcomer and demonstrably deficient in a number of areas, she’d be eaten alive for the fodder she’d produce with an all out attack...
G the defeatist circle jerk has their own thread...
...what’s the problem...you scared of a little debate on a subject? People with a different point of view from yours need to go elsewhere? Such courage...
“Dick talks a good talk, but I’ve noticed over the years that he’s usually wrong in his predictions, more often than not!”
And yet he still gets paid handsomely for being wrong.
Same with that Shrumm guy.
I’m right more often than these guys.
Maybe somebody could start paying me silly sums of money to spout off without worrying about getting it right.
Found on the Dick Morris page:
EST Subject: Read this article that someone posted
in another blog If it’s true, it would certainly be a bomb shell.
Subject: WHERE DID OBAMA’S MONEY COME FROM?
Subject: New York Times Editorial
By MAUREEN DOWD
Published: June 29, 2008
OBAMA’S TROUBLING INTERNET FUND RAISING
The internet service providers (ISP) they were able to trace were from Saudi Arabia , Iran , and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the banks used for fund transfers was also located in Saudi Arabia .
Another concentrated group of donations was traced to a Chinese ISPwith a similar pattern of limited credit card charges.
It became clear that these
donations were very likely coming from sources other than American voters.
It was also decided that it was not the responsibility of the campaign to audit these millions of contributions as to the actual source (specific credit card number or bank transfer account numbers) to insure that none of these internet contributors exceeded the legal maximum donation on a cumulative basis of many small donations.
They also found the record keeping was not complete enough to do it anyway.
I guess we should have been somewhat suspicious when the numbers started to come out. We were told (no proof offered) that the Obama internet contributions were from $10.00 to $25.00 or so.
If the $200,000,000 is right, and the average contribution was $15.00, that would mean over 13 million individuals made contributions? That would also be 13 million contributions would need to be processed.
How did all that happen?
I believe the Obama campaign’s internet fund raising needs a serious, in depth investigation and audit.
The fact that the NY Times allowed this to be printed is amazing in itself
The liberal establishment is eating her alive anyway.
I don’t think Dick is right about a lot of stuff but I do believe he is right on this one.
I also believe I would go “nuclear” on Obama. I would start tying this financial mess to Obama with his relationships with Fannie Mae, Fredie Mac and ACORN.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.