Obama's speech has a lot of the elements of his usual stump speech, but in a radical departure from normal habit he's . . . attacking Republicans at great length. Especially John McCain. It's pretty fun.
« Maryland Exits | Main | DC »
Going Long
12 Feb 2008 09:51 pm
Comments (87)
Pleeeeeeeease don't change your prediction.
Obama not only can play defense, he knows how to drive it to the basket.
This is our candidate, the is the dem we've been waiting for. Hopefully those in Ohio and Texas can see this.
He's pre-emptively dealing with Hillary's claim (which we'll hear a lot of) that he's too weak to fight in a general election. How is he doing that? By showing just how strong he'll be.
It's also the antidote to her crap that he just wants everyone to get along. Really? He's the one starting the attacks now.
The change in tone is Obama's response to criticism from Clinton's camp that he isn't tough enough to take on Republicans, that he's too conciliatory to achieve a meaningful liberal agenda.
Lots of Edwardsian flourishes in this speech.
I like it. Keep poaching Clinton's base.
That one went out to John Edwards, methinks.
Right now in Wisconsin, Obama is previewing his belief that the American people will gladly choose to stop throwing our wealth down the Money Pit of Iraq. Good luck John McCain. By the time this Autumn rolls around and unemployment has ticked higher, you are going to be saying "my friends we need to finish the job in Iraq, no matter the cost."
Good luck.
link to the speech ?
What's up with the audio? When the crowd swells, it sounds like the source changes, and I hear a lady's voice in the background. This is the MSNBC feed.
Glad you noticed Matt. It's great.
Jackifus: go to CNN.com they have a live feed
Edwardian flourishes? God, I hope not--acsots and handlebar mustaches are electorally disastrous in this day and age!
Oh, Edwardsian. Never mind.
I would totally vote for Rollie Fingers, James Gary.
What's really funny is the contrast with McCain's speech. What a bunch of tire looking old white men.
that's tired looking old white men.
Wow, the switch from Obama's speech to McCain's on MSNBC was amazing... From Obama's oration in front of a cheering crowd to a tight shot of Mac huddling with dour, dazed-looking old people, speechifying in a sing-song sort of style reminiscent of the narration of a child's audiobook...
Excellent, Matt B!
Hey, I'm an Obama cultist. If The Leader says grow a handlebar moustache, I'll get right on it.
McCain's going after Obama now. Perfect! Let's get this general election started!
My friends, I am a crazy old man. I have surrounded myself by the living dead, my friends.
What's really funny is the contrast with McCain's speech. What a bunch of tired looking old white men.
I was thinking the same thing. I got a little of the old Dole feeling -- that McCain's heart really isn't in this.
It's interesting what a few changes did to the rhythm of his stump speech. Psychologists should study what happens in the brains of politicians who have to repeat the same lines so many times.
"n a radical departure from normal habit he's . . . attacking Republicans at great length. Especially John McCain. It's pretty fun."
Also pretty smart. He's speaking like he's the candidate. Democrats who tune into him will hear him putting down McCain; Democrats who tune into Hillary will hear her meekly trying to say that although Obama is swell and everything, she's slightly better or whatever. Democrats want to win in November and they will see him as the one carrying the torch.
McCain is assuming Obama is his opponent and attacking him for being a vane young whipper snapper.
My god, republicans have to be hoping that racism runs very, very deep throughout the heartland.
Yes, as Kevin notes, now that McCain doesn't have to fight off the wingers any more he is going to the center with a message that is clearly intended to take on Obama: "I wasn't annointed by history" etc. It looks like the McCain camp has concluded Obama is their opponent.
What Sonic Charmer said. Obama makes missteps sometimes, but his sense of timing's awfully good. This seems like a great way to signal that he thinks he's the nominee.
Interesting that McCain is surrounded by my soon-to-be-former Senator John Warner, my soon-to-be-former Representative Tom Davis, his wife former state Senator Jeanne Devolites Davis, some anonymous GOP ogress, and a bunch of suit-and-tie fascists.
Welcome to the Geritol Morning in America, my friends!
There's lot in McCain's speech that falls flat, but of course, few of us agree with the values he's espousing.
But it's a particularly interesting comparison in considering how it will play against Obama. He's repeating a standard Republican demonization of "liberal elites who hate America," but Obama seems to me to be more resistant to that tactic than any other well-educated liberal I've ever seen. Part of his particular power, I think, is that he speaks simultaneously to those who've always criticized America for falling far short of its ideals and those who have never doubted it's greatness. In a very authentic way, he makes progressive values and dissent against ill-chosen military intervention patriotic. I think it's hard to listen to him and witness his campaign and not be proud as an American. I am obviously an Obama supporter, but you keep hearing similar sentiments even among many of those who don't support him, even when they're trying to resist it. I'm in no way trying to say that the floodgates are opening, I'm just trying to say that I can't see this common Republican refrain sticking.
I hope you're right, mo, but there's still 8 months until the general election.
You got the rhythm down, BobJ
My friends, I am a crazy old man. I have surrounded myself by the living dead, my friends.
What's really funny is the contrast with McCain's speech. What a bunch of tire looking old white men.
Yup. All the people surrounding McCain on stage look they are waiting for him to die. Quietly concerned that he might whisper his last words.
If McCain falls down and breaks a hip, this thing is over.
Olbermann: the rule is you want to speak before Obama, not after Obama, if at all possible.
I think it's hard to listen to him and witness his campaign and not be proud as an American.
What, you didn't think McCain's "Screw hope, and the government I'm trying to be the head of sucks too" message will resonate with the voters?
My friends, I am a crazy old man. I have surrounded myself by the living dead, my friends.
Posted by BobJ
I literally laughed out loud at this.
Hey kevin,
I'm not saying other critiques won't hurt - just that I don't see this particular one gaining much traction (which i think is one of the sources of a pretty strong mistrust of northeastern liberals in middle america). Of course, this assumes he overcomes the Muslim rumors.
My friends, I am a crazy old man. I have surrounded myself by the living dead, my friends.
Pundits eat that up, though. Music to David Broder's ears.
It's what American needs to hear so that we can heal our partisan divisions.
He's a muslim?
My friends, I am a crazy old man. I have surrounded myself by the living dead, my friends.
People frequently claim that they laugh out loud or whatever at blog comments, but I don't give much credit to that b/c I certainly don't. But this one was good. I really did laugh out loud.
Anyone secretly hoping for the old man to fall off a stage at some point (not that he'd hurt more than his ego)?
Obama's neatest trick is to praise McCain, and then bury him. An American hero - but the wheels fell off the Straight Talk Express. That way, McCain can't claim he is being disrespected, while Obama can neatly expose all the old villain's flip-flops and barefaced acts of hypocrisy.
I was at the speech/rally in WI about fifty feet from the podium - very electrifying. Though I do wish the crowd would've done the "Section O" cheer from football games during the speech. We did it once before Obama came on and man all the cameras in the room were a-twitter. (the cheer: hold your arms overhead in an "O" shape, similar to making letters in YMCA, and shout "ooooooooh" as loud as you can. Section O is a student section at UW football games and the students always do it, and the students in other sections shout "O sucks" back at them).
well, one thing his speech tonight indicates is the death of Clintonian third-way centrism. which will dash some hopes among moderate republicans, most of whom will find his attacks on nafta a bit unbecoming, and his suggestion that oil prices are a product of something other than market demand just strange.
obama is playing a dangerous game in pretending to speak for troops in iraq at a time when mccain, a man who knows a bit about war, has a son serving there.
Tactical question: Does he really want to attack republicans (other than McCain)? Why mess with a winning formula?
In the exit polls for VA, 7% of voters were self-described republicans. Obama won 70% of those voters, 66% of self-described independents and 61% of self-described democrats.
Reagan won with "Reagan Democrats." Obama could win with "Obama Republicans" if he stays positive. He could be a transformative figure like Reagan was, but Clinton was not.
his suggestion that oil prices are a product of something other than market demand just strange
Ah, OPEC determines the oil prices so it is simply not market forces.
Obama's neatest trick is to praise McCain, and then bury him. An American hero - but the wheels fell off the Straight Talk Express.
It's basically praising the McCain of 2000, or at least the way McMaverick was perceived by many. Which is a doubly-good strategy, since it pricks the GOP for rejecting him in favour of Bush, and pricks McCain for embracing Bush.
Thomas,
I think you are right. Obama doesn't need to run to the center, but he should protect his independents and crossovers and not run too far to left looking for a knockout in OH and TX. The nomination is already his. Don't forget that McCain is good. If you actually force yourself to listen to what at times seems like elderly babbling, he said "I know a thing or two about hope" That's going to be a pretty powerful counter-point to Obama that really grounds McCain in seriousness. The media respect VSP. The guy has 35 years of experience answering every question with, "well I was a POW and...." Still, I can't shake the fact that the guy is ancient. He's bald. And he's got cancer on his face. Americans are too superficial to elect him. Have we ever elected a bald president?
Is the hair on top of his head legitimate hair, or a comb-over? I can't quite tell.
Just like a lot of Hillary supporters underestimated Obama, many Obama supporters are underestimating McCain. He's going to put up one hell of a fight, and he could damn well win this thing.
In other words, don't get cocky.
MGJ, Obama is saying that lobbyists set the prices, which is a bit different. Besides, I thought we were all peak-oilers now, in which case it really is the market working.
Just Karl, I think you're right to think of this--even if you don't quite come out and say it--as a sign of weakness, not of strength. The left is ready to vote for him without him saying a thing, so why should he say anything for them? It's the opposite of the old Nixon game, in which he talked like a conservative and governed like a liberal. Obama should study some history and realize that talk is all that matters to a certain class.
Also, Gore is bald, and most people here think that he was elected president.
I can't believe how bad McCain is. He should certainly simply assume he has the GOP nomination and speak to the nation on a night like this, but - like everybody says - he looks like a guest star on a talk show from a sitcom that was canceled in the sixties, trying to remember his routine. Reagan had the sense to dye - and he had the sense to make his own dodderingness seem kind of cute, like he was at a Friar's club roast and it was a schtick.
McCain looked... and this is the death sentence... senatorial. Really, the GOP better dream up some excuse to give the nomination to somebody about twenty years younger. McCain is all that came out of the bag? I'd go for broke if I was in the GOP establishment - nominate Jeb! I swear, the party will rally round and they really will have a chance to pick up the industrial states in November. Otherwise they are toast.
BobJ on a roll tonight.
The McCain line was hilarious, but I laughed even harder at the line in another thread about Wisconsin not counting because it wears part of Michigan as a hat.
Just fantastic.
Shorter McCain:
I am an old man, my friends, but this is no country (wheeze) for old men. Look at my mother, my friends, who lived when men were men, and stood for values (snuffle, clears throat). The solution, my friends, is clear, we must bomb, bomb, bomb.. er honor.. the men of the past. For a hundred years, even ten thousand, my friends, that's fine by me. But they must learn to respect America again. I served in the cruellest, most brutal war of our times, when we passed campaign finance reform. The enemy did not respect my mother.. er, us.. so we bombed them... bomb bomb bomb... which is why George Bush has been an exemplary president, my friends, and I am proud to accept his endorsement.
It's the opposite of the old Nixon game, in which he talked like a conservative and governed like a liberal.
Well, I wouldn't say opposite because I don't think he'll govern like a conservative, but neither do I think this is the time to establish your liberal bona fides by attacking the Republican Party. Stay positive. His best argument in the rust belt is jobs and the cost of the war. How is McCain going to pay for this 100 years war?
If I were McCain I'd say I'm going to pay for it by getting rid of the lobbyists and getting the American people united. Two sides can play the same vacuous game.
Question for you guys: are you going to be angrier at President Obama for yanking your chain about Iraq and then not pulling out than you were at Speaker Pelosi? What David Brooks said.
As for McCain's tired speech, Steve Sailer suggests a better approach for him:
""Obama is a state-of-the-art B.S. artist who tells everybody what they want to hear. Everybody loves him because they think he agrees with them, but that's because he has spent his whole adult life not telling anybody what he really thinks. In contrast, lots of people hate me because I'm always saying what I really think."
I am honestly mystified by the optimism of the many Obama supporters here. He promises in his speech tonight to end the "Same old Washington game", and I gather that the plan is to spark enough of a movement, a 55-45 or even 60-40 election, so that the Republicans will be afraid to vote against him.
It's a lovely thought, and I pray he's right, but you are dealing with a party that votes time and again *without a single defection* to advance their reactionary agenda. Have you seen Glenn Greenwald's columns on this? The extent of their party discipline is nearly total, and it has been since 1992, when they decided that Bill Clinton was illegitimately elected (because of Perot), and they began the filibusters that have recently picked up again. They also don't fear losing their seats, as the Dems so obviously do, because money is what they love, and they are always richly rewarded in a thousand ways for their loyalty to the reactionary agenda.
You guys are celebrating on the day that the Senate, including 18 Democrats, voted to uphold FISA immunity, and Justice Scalia gave an interview where he supported waterboarding. Obama's eloquence is very great, but its appeal to "turn the page" and "get away from the old history" strikes me as a siren song: you can't get away from history, you have to go deal with it or it consumes you. That's why I've been supporting Hillary: with her, the hatred is all out in the open, and we can't kid ourselves about who these reactionaries really are. She *forces* us to choose sides: we *aren't* one country, not really, except when we're attacked. And in that poisonous climate, we actually have to work on policy, because it becomes our only salvation. Little, unglamorous programs performed by bureaucrats who believe in Washington, and can actually make it work. What do they think of Obama's implied denunciations of the system they sometimes achieve fine results in?
I honestly hope I'm wrong, and that you're right, and that this is the first night of the new millenium. But America has a long history of falling hard for promises of newness, because it's just so much easier--hey, that's why we left Europe, right?--and the record of subsequent disillusionment is nearly total.
Well, we'll see; I remember the hopes of the early Clinton years, so similar to what we hear now; and I remember the determination of the movement conservatives to kill those hopes, and their cold, unyielding focus on obstruction of every kind. Prove to me, please, that I'm wrong!
Should be interesting to see how long McCain lasts after claiming an unswerving fidelity to the truth. He will emerge as either a pathological liar, or else a pitiable schizophrenic.
Obama can defend any new spending plan by saying I'm going to let the Bush tax cuts expire for rich people making x and I'm going to bring the troops home and end this war. McCain's only response can be that he'll eliminate all government services during a time of recession and hardship, or else sink the country deeper in debt for a war of choice instead of guaranteeing their families have health care after they lose their jobs. McCain needs more than lobbyists. He's going to have to restructure the military or something to eliminate waste, fraud, and abuse.
Steve Sailor is right about one thing. Lots of people hate him.
Citing Steve Sailor is like citing Taylor Marsh. If the goal is to persuade an undecided, you're better off just not posting at all.
Steve Sailor is right about one thing. Lots of people hate him.
ROFL
"Citing Steve Sailor is like citing Taylor Marsh. If the goal is to persuade an undecided, you're better off just not posting at all."
1) No idea who Taylor Marsh is.
2) No one who reads these comment sections is undecided about anything; the "undecideds" don't spend time on political blogs.
3) I wasn't trying to persuade you of anything. Just mentioning that Sailer's strategy for McCain -- which McCain probably won't use, for fear of offending his fans in the press corps -- made sense.
4) I don't even know which one of these candidates I want to win. Neither is appealing to me. All I know is that the country will survive either one.
Although I'm extremely confident with Obama against McCain, I suggest we all try to get over the ageist cracks and bigotry pretty quickly. A lot of older people vote. Some of them probably prefer the low-key McCain living room approach to the noisy Obama stadium rock excitement, and they might even find some of those gray heads reassuring.
Correction: I guess #4 actually does make me undecided, so I may be the exception here.
"Interesting that McCain is surrounded by my soon-to-be-former Senator John Warner"
This is funny.
Did you guys see Stephen Colbert's interview with Dr. Aubrey de Grey on his show? It's posted over at BoingBoing:
http://www.boingboing.net/2008/02/12/aubrey-de-grey-on-co.html
Colbert brought up the McCain age question, and he demonstrated how McCain could look young by having the "even older" Senator Warner behind him on one side, and some dead Neanderthal frozen in ice on the other side.
Then he did a fairly decent interview with de Grey on de Grey's anti-aging initiatives. He cracked some jokes, but so did de Grey, so it evened out a fairly balanced interview despite the subject being considered "fringe" (not to mention de Grey's huge beard being considered "fringe".) [For the record, de Grey is one smart academic dude.]
McCain could stand next to his 96 year old mother if he wants to look younger, while suggesting he's got some longevity genes at the same time. Or he could take a page from our friend Richard Steven Hack and explain how nanotechnology will soon make his age irrelevant.
FYI, just scanning Steve Sailer's website's comment section, and you folks would be pleasantly surprised by the fans Obama is winning there.
Man are Hillary supporters Debbie Downers. You really have to have a dark, cynical view of America and humanity to support her.
Kevin E., I hope this is a fair analogy. You seem to be saying that you prefer Hillary because the bees nest has been completely shaken, and you know how many bees are trying to sting you, and with Obama, the nest hasn't been shaken yet, so you don't know how many bees want to attack you.
If you buy that, here's the thing: it's the same size bees nest for both Hillary and Obama. The worst case scenario is that he meets as much conservative resistance (bees) as Hillary, can't muster enough public support to overcome it, and will have to fight the same battles she will have to fight if she were President.
In other words, Barack Obama's worst case for the Presidency is Hillary Clinton's most likely case. There is a real possibility that he can generate enough public support for his proposals to win over moderate Republicans, and achieve more than Clinton can.
Here's what you risk when you support Barack Obama: being disappointed. I'm willing to take that emotional hit for a chance at something greater. The alternate is voting for someone who won't aim high enough to disappoint you.
I suggest we all try to get over the ageist cracks and bigotry pretty quickly.
Dan, I think you're likely to be disappointed. Age is going to be a huge issue in an Obama-McCain matchup. The late night shows are going to have a field day. Ultimately, I don't know if it will help or hurt Obama, but humor can be a devastating weapon.
Nixon-JFK?
"It's a lovely thought, and I pray he's right, but you are dealing with a party that votes time and again *without a single defection* to advance their reactionary agenda. Have you seen Glenn Greenwald's columns on this?"
Um, have you been watching their primary? Sit, and I will tell you the story of the Republicans in 2008. They ran one guy from the corporate wing of the party, one guy from the war hero wing, one guy from the war fetishist wing, one guy from the fundie nutjob wing, one guy who snuck in from the libertarian party, one guy who'd played a conservative on TV, and each pulled their stake of the big tent with in them, and it collapsed around them. A moment of silence Then, first there was heard a screaming, of mortal pain and flesh being rent from bones --punctuated by the occasional cell phone call --then of... could it be... pleasure? horror? a screams of masochistic revelry rose into a fever pitch, and the cacophonies of their suffering was heard voices, speaking in the vile tongue of the Elder Races... and a black smoke crept from the ground as Elder Cheney emerged from his lair and began to intone what i could only barely understand as some sort of euology for humanity, his deep voice punctuated by an intermittent "hohhhh-pur," his promises of everlasting power driving the creature to the madness of bloodlust, and a stench filled the room, worse than any I had ever smelled even in Rove's sanctum, and without warning a single claw, dripping with blood, viscera, mucus -- slit a door in the Big Tent of the Republican Party and there began to emerge a single being, walking in perfect lockstep as everyone listened, and everyone was listening still when It lumbered slobberingly into sight and gropingly squeezed Its gelatinous green immensity through the black doorway into the tainted outside air... Something obscures my view, or the dream ends then, and every time I pray it will never return, but even on those nights when I remain inside my own mind, a message intones to me, again and again in that same alien ongue: Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu Thr'ti'frth nMgah'Cthu'sehts wgah'nagl fhtagn."
"Have we ever elected a bald president?"
Several, in fact. Most recently, Eisenhower. But none since that 1960 television-and-radio debate changed our politics for the more superficial and theatrical.
In this case, since Obama has the better substantive message AND the better style it shouldn't matter (and it worked out then, too, as we later found out that Nixon was a bit of a creep in addition to getting out-styled by Kennedy).
john's right. You really do "have to have a dark, cynical view of America and humanity to support" Hillary. Then again, I've never seen any reason not to have such a view. Hell, Obama strikes me as a master panderer -- he's more like Bill Clinton than Hillary is.
Having said that, I think this is just about over. It's like Mortal Kombat -- all he has to do is reach in and pull out her still-beating heart.
Skeptics about the Iraq pullout will have their argument for the next 50 years, at least. The pullout then will be no sweeter than the pullout now. But at least the pullout now will save money and troops and create flexibility. Most importantly, when we respond to the inevitable worsening that occurs on our withdrawal of occupation forces, it will be with targeted OFFENSIVE military force.
"Or he could take a page from our friend Richard Steven Hack and explain how nanotechnology will soon make his age irrelevant."
Sorry, McCain, won't work. Nanotech will be in no position to extend aging for at least another twenty years. Other techniques, as de Grey points out, will be more effective before then, although it's possible they might be potentiated by early forms of bionanotech.
Later, of course, nanotech will be THE method to extend lifespan to essentially an unlimited degree.
Anybody under the age of 40 today is unlikely to die from "old age" (more precisely, the damage that is done to the body over time) or disease. (You can still croak by getting hit sufficiently hard by a bus, at least for the next few decades.)
Anybody between 40 and 60 has a more or less even chance, depending on where they are in that age range, higher or lower.
Anybody over 60 today had better be looking into cryonic preservation as there is no guarantee you'll be able to make it until sufficient technology exists to extend your span another 20 years or so.
It's a numbers game. Average male lifespan is 74. If you're under 40, that gives you at least another 34 years - plenty of time for de Grey's sort of technology to give you another 20 or more years. By the expiration of that total 54 years, nanotech will give you way more time. By the expiration of THAT time - say, the end of this century - you'll be effectively ageless. (Actually by that time, you won't be even remotely human, but that's another story.)
But if you're between 40 and 60 you might have another 34 years, or you might have only 14. The latter might not be enough.
Over 60, you'll have less than 14 years - definitely not good enough, barring some sort of breakthrough.
It's that simple.
Somebody Matt's age simply isn't going to die of "old age." Matt has at least another 50 years - unless he pisses off the wrong Blogginghead - and by that time all he'll have to worry about is whether we Transhumans have decided to ace "pundits" along with everybody else we can't stand.
Nixon seemed much older than JFK, but in fact they were only 5 years apart.
Nixon was only 39 when he was elected Vice President. He really was an impressive man, his family had no connections and no money and yet 6 years after he left the Navy, he was elected Vice President of the United States.
If only his mental stability was merely average, his above average work ethic and brains would have made him a great president. That factor (mental stability) is probably the greatest advantage Obama has over McCain.
Obama comes across as a decent guy with his head screwed on straight while McCain is just angry. His fellow Republican senators don't hate him because he's a maverick, they hate him because he's a jerk.
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu Thr'ti'frth nMgah'Cthu'sehts wgah'nagl fhtagn."
The call of Cthulhu. Nice.
"Having said that, I think this is just about over. It's like Mortal Kombat -- all he has to do is reach in and pull out her still-beating heart."
Wouldn't the "Friendship" fatality be better for the party?
"Most importantly, when we respond to the inevitable worsening that occurs on our withdrawal of occupation forces, it will be with targeted OFFENSIVE military force."
This makes no sense. If you were sure that conditions in Iraq would worsen if we bailed out in the next few years, implicitly, you'd only want us to bail out if you didn't care what happened in Iraq. If you didn't care, why would you pull out, just to go back in?
"Later, of course, nanotech will be THE method to extend lifespan to essentially an unlimited degree."
When President Obama raises the capital gains tax from 15% to 28%, won't that lower investment in nanotech, since it will take a much bigger bite out of potential returns? Investors would have less motivation to invest in nanotech venture capital companies like TINY
I agree McCain should not be underestimated as a campaigner. In fact, despite his legendary temper, he shares an emotional trait in common with Obama: he remains fundamentally calm in the face of adversity, which is a large part of why both of them were able to ride out the earlier bad times in their respective nomination processes and emerge victorious (yes, I am currently assuming Obama wins--I have some rudimentary math skills).
That said, Obama has announced what to me looks like the exact strategy he needs to not just beat McCain but in fact to win in a landslide against McCain. Basically, he takes a very unpopular war and ties it to a lack of fiscal discipline and a disregard for the long term health of our economy (on the theory that the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in Iraq could have been better spent on productivity-enhancing and job-creating things like alternative energy, infrastructure, and subsidizing affordable health care for workers). In the current political climate, that pushes all the right buttons in a very simple and intuitive fashion. Couple that with Obama's "new politics" voters (which includes many independents and a decent number of Republicans), and the deep ambivalence among various other Republicans towards McCain, and I don't see how McCain charms his way to a win.
The last hope for the GOP is that McCain somehow finds a way to attack Obama on character issues, which would likely have to be manufactured. Personally, I think there is every reason to believe that such a strategy would be more likely to backfire than to help. Moreover, I actually have enough respect for McCain to think he might rather lose than to try to win that way. But even if he tried, and even if it worked to some degree, I don't see how he gets closer to winning than Bush the Elder in 1992 or Dole in 1996 (both running against an opponent whose character issues were not exactly manufactured).
So, I am truly not underestimating McCain's campaigning abilities. But unless the political climate completely changes as a result of some external events, I think he faces far, far too much of a deficit to make up.
Fred,
Yes, why would anyone invest in a project that would only capture 72% of the profits from a viable anti-aging technology? Why, that would be mere trillions of dollars of return, as opposed to the slightly more trillions of dollars of return you could get if the capital gains tax let you capture 85% of the profits.
This, by the way, is a snarky way of reminding people about the diminishing marginal utility of money, which implies that for high return projects, there will be very little decrease in marginal incentives from tax raises of that scale.
"Basically, he takes a very unpopular war and ties it to a lack of fiscal discipline and a disregard for the long term health of our economy (on the theory that the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in Iraq could have been better spent on productivity-enhancing and job-creating things like alternative energy, infrastructure, and subsidizing affordable health care for workers)."
This argument could help Obama win, but it would cause him problems if he did win. First, he's not going to withdraw from Iraq in his first term. Second, his proposal for a universal health care entitlement is the opposite of fiscal discipline.
"The last hope for the GOP is that McCain somehow finds a way to attack Obama on character issues, which would likely have to be manufactured."
The way to run against Obama isn't to attack him on character or anything else -- because of his race that would be off-limits, for fear of being accused of racism. The better approach would be to force Obama to get specific on policy and highlight the contradictions (e.g., UHC versus fiscal conservatism; withdrawing from Iraq versus his equivocations suggesting he wouldn't, etc.). When Obama starts tap-dancing (as he did on occasion during the debates), McCain can contrast the pandering with his own history of working with Democrats to do what he thinks is best for the country, even if it pisses off his own party.
That, of course, assumes that McCain wants to win. He may just be going through the motions Dole-style.
"Yes, why would anyone invest in a project that would only capture 72% of the profits from a viable anti-aging technology?"
First, by the time the technology is "viable" (if that happens), the investment opportunities will have mostly disappeared. Investors take big risks in investing in this sort of technology. Second, there will still be investors at a 28% capital gains rate, but with potential returns reduced, there will be less investment. You don't think a near-doubling in tax rates will have any effect on investment? Hack's fantasy may still come true, but with less investment, it may take longer.
Was I the only person who watched his Jefferson-Jackson speech last week? Jonathan Cohn at TNR thought this was new, too. But either way, it was great stuff Saturday, and it was great stuff last night, too. Surprised Hillary didn't try going after McCain more directly and bypassing Obama.
Fred,
First, sure, if McCain can somehow zero out his massive deficit on the war issue, he has a fighting chance. Apparently you think he can do that. I doubt it.
Second, I think the American people have moved past the stage where they will buy the argument that any proposal for new government spending is fundamentally incompatible with fiscal discipline, and that in general fiscal discipline is just another way of saying lower tax rates. Ironically, the GOP has trashed that argument itself, probably for at least a generation, by simultaneously telling people that all the massive spending increases during the last seven years (including but not limited to the war) somehow don't matter, while also graphically demonstrating that tax rates can in fact be too low to be sustainable.
Third, of course increasing the tax on investment returns could affect investment decisions. You are just looking in the exact wrong place. An increase of that sort will have the most effect on already very low margin projects (something like grocery stores, or price-regulated utilities). If you look just at high-risk/high-return projects, the marginal incentive effect will be very small. Indeed, it is as good a guess as any that investment in such projects would actually increase, even if net investment across the entire economy decreased, as people switched from low margin to high margin projects.
Fourth, you do realize that maximizing the investment rate across the entire economy is not the goal, right? Too much savings relatively to consumption actually leads to a deflationary recession, ala Japan, and the goal is to have a healthy and sustainable balance between consumption and savings. So merely pointing out that a higher tax rate on investment returns would likely have some marginal effect on the overall investment rate does not really tell you whether that would be a good or bad thing. Rather, it depends on where we are relative to the optimal balance--and right now, it looks like we need more consumption, not more savings.
DTM,
"First, sure, if McCain can somehow zero out his massive deficit on the war issue, he has a fighting chance."
The odds are against McCain, but not because of the war. Conditions in Iraq have improved dramatically since the policy McCain championed was enacted, and, in any case, Obama is too smart to unequivocally propose withdrawing from Iraq. The odds are against McCain because Obama is young, charismatic, and black, and because McCain's own party is disillusioned with him and that will probably suppress turnout.
"Second, I think the American people have moved past the stage where they will buy the argument that any proposal for new government spending is fundamentally incompatible with fiscal discipline"
Not any proposal for new government spending, but an enormous new entitlement program is incompatible with fiscal discipline -- especially in the absence of plans to deal with the fiscal problems posed by our existing entitlements. Too be sure, fiscal discipline does not equal tax cuts. GOP dogmatists have boxed themselves into a corner on tax cuts, since federal taxes as a percentage of GDP are already fairly low by historical standards. It may take a Democrat raising taxes to make the tax cut argument effective again.
"Third, of course increasing the tax on investment returns could affect investment decisions. You are just looking in the exact wrong place."
When taxes on investments -- and taxes generally -- go up, that doesn't increase investments in high-risk, potentially high-return securities. On the contrary, investment flows to securities that promise tax minimization or avoidance.
"Too much savings relatively to consumption actually leads to a deflationary recession, ala Japan, and the goal is to have a healthy and sustainable balance between consumption and savings."
Do you really think the problem America has is too much savings relative to consumption?
Jason wrote:
"In other words, Barack Obama's worst case for the Presidency is Hillary Clinton's most likely case. There is a real possibility that he can generate enough public support for his proposals to win over moderate Republicans, and achieve more than Clinton can."
That's a good argument, but the problems I see are that there are so few moderate Republicans left, and a lot of their "moderation" is public relations; again, Greenwald's rundown of their bloc voting is eye opening:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/01/30/bipartisanship/index.html
Arlen Specter is the posterboy for their brand of moderation: make noise on the committee, stand up to the President in a speech or with some tough questions, then vote with him 95% of the time.
Add to that the fact that the Republicans will start running for 2012 on January 20th and that the problems we'd inherit are so gigantic, and I'd say the odds against any Democratic major legislation (health care, end the war) are pretty long. But I think you have a better chance against them if you are *fighting* their phony bipartisanship than if you are endorsing it and giving them cover. One ray of "hope": financial and other catastrophes may rally people a la FDR and the Depression; in that case, eloquence is a great aid in a secondary role, for which it is more suited. But that's a long shot too, and it could easily break against whomever is President.
I thought John Edwards had the best platform of the three because of all these factors, even though I actually have warmer feelings for Hillary.
And all this is besides the very tough task of beating a war hero in America with either an African-American or a woman. I hope Obama gets programmatic very quickly in his speeches; I don't think "Hope" and "Washington is broken" (Mitt Romney's exact words, by the way, which I find disturbing) carries us through November.
I'd say Obama is already being very programatic in his speeches. Hope and change are rhetorical flourishes that give a theme to his speeches. But he gets very specific if you actually listen to him.
It's possible that his whole call for bipartisanship is quite strategic. What I think he's doing is setting it up so that whatever he calls for he gets to call bipartisan. Those who oppose him are being partisan and divisive. It's a good strategy and one that's worked for many a republican.
His victory speech is good. I do like how he goes after McCain.
One criticism. Obama needs to work on his mic technique. From time to time he leans down and talks right into the microphone and his voice gets uncomfortably loud.
Fred,
First, to somewhat state the obvious, you can't easily talk about incentive effects from "taxes generally". For example, if you raise the tax rate on income/dividends, it is true that people will likely shift some of their investments to projects which minimize income/dividends in an attempt to lower their tax loss. Of course, those tend to be projects which provide their return in the form of capital gains rather than income/dividends. So, that is a simple case of how increasing one particular tax rate can cost a shift of investment in favor of one particular kind of project, even if it also causes a net decrease in total investment.
Second, I think you are simply failing to grasp that shifting investment to higher return projects is in fact a "tax minimization" strategy. Again, that is a straightforward implication of the diminishing marginal utility of money: your tax rate as measured in utility goes down as your return measured in dollars goes up if you keep the marginal tax rate constant.
Accordingly, if you assume the risks remain the same, higher risk-higher return projects become more, not less, attractive as the tax rate on investments increases. Of course, consumption also becomes more attractive relative to savings in general, but that was my point: at the same time the overall savings rate may go down, investment in particular kinds of projects may go up.
Your counter to this pretty basic argument appears to be the assertion that empirically we see the opposite result: higher capital gains taxes mean lower investment in high-risk/high-return projects. Well, you'll have to show me the empirical data you have in mind, because that certainly does not have to be the case.
As for America's economy right now: I'd say it is too early to call exactly how bad things might get. But to somewhat state the obvious, the Fed obviously thinks that excessive saving relative to consumption is part of the problem, since that is the whole point of lowering interest rates. Similarly, any talk of the need for a "stimulus package" for consumers obviously starts with the same premise.
"Basically, he takes a very unpopular war and ties it to a lack of fiscal discipline and a disregard for the long term health of our economy (on the theory that the hundreds of billions of dollars wasted in Iraq could have been better spent on productivity-enhancing and job-creating things like alternative energy, infrastructure, and subsidizing affordable health care for workers). In the current political climate, that pushes all the right buttons in a very simple and intuitive fashion. Couple that with Obama's "new politics" voters (which includes many independents and a decent number of Republicans), and the deep ambivalence among various other Republicans towards McCain, and I don't see how McCain charms his way to a win."
I saw an AP poll recently that showed that the #1 policy Americans think will improve the economy is to get out of Iraq. It looks like he's tying the #1 and #2 issues together in a way to hit McCain on both issues at once. Hopefully Obama will keep McCain on defense about Iraq by tying it to the economy at the same time, thus neutralizing his war hero shortcut to foreign policy insight.
DTM,
"Second, I think you are simply failing to grasp that shifting investment to higher return projects is in fact a "tax minimization" strategy."
That may be your theory, but historically, that hasn't been the case. In higher tax environments, the securities investors have gravitated to for tax minimization have not been higher potential return securities. Do a little research on what the popular investments were in the decade before the Reagan tax cuts: municipal bonds, tax-advantaged limited partnerships, etc.
"But to somewhat state the obvious, the Fed obviously thinks that excessive saving relative to consumption is part of the problem, since that is the whole point of lowering interest rates."
Please find me one citation by the Fed where it worries that U.S. savings rates are too low.
Comments closed February 26, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
Even with a notecard, he botched Mayor Dave's surname. (It is tough, tho.)
Posted by Matt B | February 12, 2008 9:55 PM