The Blog @ Spolitics

It’s Talk. But Is It Straight?

From WaPo:

At every stop, [John McCain] went out of his way to make comments unpopular with many Republicans, saying he does not support drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and giving them “straight talk” by vowing that if elected he would never allow torture. The audience applauded heartily at that, even though his position runs counter to the way many in his party view controversial interrogation tactics.

McCain also told reporters that any candidate who says traditional auto manufacturing jobs “are coming back is either naive or is not talking straight with the people of Michigan and America.” Instead, he said, business and political leaders should “embrace green technologies,” adding: “That’s the future. That’s what we want.”

When I hear comments like this from Senator McCain, two things come to mind.

1) If he’s hoping to win Michigan with the support of Democrats and Independent voters, then, in the examples above, isn’t he just telling them exactly what they want to hear?

2) His “straight talk” – at least with regards to the economy — reminds me of when Jimmy Carter told the American people they needed to sacrifice. It makes me wonder: is it that it can’t be done — that the auto industry cannot be revived with lower corporate taxes, less regulation and more government funding for innovation — or simply that John McCain can’t get it done. After all, his solution for the job exodus is job training. Someone should point out to the senator that there is little to be gained from training someone to do a job that doesn’t exist.

According to the rhetoric, Mitt wants to send people to work and John wants to send them to school. We’ll find out later today where the voters of Michigan want to go.

Move On Over, General. There’s Only Progress in Iraq Because of Hillary.

It was a feat of hypocritical gymnastics so great, it deserves recognition. On Meet the Press this past weekend, Senator Clinton criticized Senator Obama by saying that, when it comes to making change happen, it’s not enough to give speeches. Then a few minutes later she pooh-poohed the surge and the progress being made by General Petreaus in Iraq — progress she claimed took a “willing suspension of disbelief” to support — and stated that the changes in Iraq are the result of the speeches being made by the Democratic nominees for President.

“I know the Iraqi’s listen to everything I say,” Clinton claimed.

Words are not enough… unless, of course, they’re Hillary’s words. Move On over, General Petreaus. Apparently all of the credit for the progress in Iraq goes to Hillary Clinton’s “Speech Surge.” Talk about fairy tales.

Hillary’s Tears Or Charlie Gibson?

Given all the analysis of the effect of Hillary’s tears on the NH primary, I find it odd that no one has mentioned the fact that the moderator in Saturday’s debate on ABC, Charlie Gibson, asked the Republican candidates to make their case for why Americans should vote for them instead of Obama specifically.  Rudy made the point that change is just a concept, but “is it change for good or change for bad.” 

The others made their arguments, Mitt pointed out that he had no executive leadership experience and Fred said he was too liberal.  When Gibson asked Obama to respond, he was dismissive and offered no real rebuttal saying he was watching football, not the debates. 

In a story on Obama, a Guardian reporter had an interview with a voter who cited Rudy’s quote about change (but attributed it to McCain) as the reason why he was questioning his support for Obama — suggesting the argument may have gained some traction.  

The suggestion here isn’t that this helped Hillary directly, but that it hurt Obama with undecided independent voters who ended up voting Republican. 

There are a handful of explanations for the late swing in NH.  I’m just surprised that I haven’t heard this one as well — and, especially, that I haven’t heard complaints about it from Obama supporters.