« Why Negotiate? | Main | Small Differences »

McSame?

22 May 2008 08:48 am

Here's a provocative point from Sidney Blumenthal:

Sidney Blumenthal, a former senior adviser to President Bill Clinton and strategist for Hillary Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign, went “off message” (his words) today with a warning to his party: Don’t run against GOP nominee John McCain by painting him as Bush III, because he’s not. Bucking the Democratic National Committee’s talking points that characterize a potential McCain administration as tantamount to a third Bush term, Blumenthal told our Liz Halloran that running on that strategy in the fall would be a mistake. “I understand people’s political reasons for doing that,” he said. “I think it’s more helpful to describe [political opponents] as they are.” Bottom line, Blumenthal calls the strategy “a mistake and adds: “The public doesn’t see [McCain] that way. That’s a hard sell.”

I'll just note that I think it would be silly to base a campaign strategy on how the public currently views John McCain (the point of the swift-boat attacks, for example, was to change perceptions of John Kerry) and then say it's probably best to bracket the question of campaign strategy and just ask straight-up how different Bush and McCain are:

  • In foreign policy, I think you'd see substantial Bush-McCain continuity since McCain pioneered a lot of Bushist ideas and I would suspect that any change would probably be for the worse as McCain seems to agree with the Bush administration's very worst instincts on North Korea and Russia.
  • On detainee treatment and torture, McCain's been pretty weasely, but you could say the same for various Democrats and he'd clearly be a change of some sort.
  • On climate, McCain is clearly better than Bush and clearly worse than Obama and the leading progressives in congress.
  • Whether you like Bush's education policy record or not, that's clearly an issue he's identified himself with over the years and taken an interest in. McCain, by contrast, literally can't be bothered to offer an education policy, though he says he'll do so at some point.
  • By contrast, McCain's domestic passion is anti-pork crusading, something he's stuck with through thick and thin and that Bush has never cared about at all.
  • On immigration, they're identical business-oriented cheap labor Republicans willing to try to cut a deal with liberal groups.
  • On taxes, they once had different ideas, but McCain has made clear and unambiguous promises to continue Bush's tax policies.
  • On health care, they offer similar ideas about trying to get individuals to directly bear more of the costs of care in hopes that this will reduce costs overall down the road.
  • Temperamentally and personally they're quite different, but appear to share a fundamental lack of interest in policy issues.

These are real differences. You could imagine McCain becoming a much better president than Bush were he to lead the country down a path of carbon emissions reduction and set the stage for a world in which we avoid the worst consequences of climate change. You could also imagine McCain becoming a much worse president than Bush were he to neoconize our relationship with Russia and China. On domestic policy, one suspects that McCain would be more inclined than Bush to reach compromises with congressional Democrats, but he hasn't made any commitments in that regard, and his promises on the tax issue would make it impossible for him to govern as a moderate even if he were inclined to do so.

Basically, I think that despite their differences Bush really would end up substantially "McSame" as Bush unless you assume he's just lying about tax policy which would be a significant change in its own right and also open the door to more un-Bushian acts on other domestic policy issues. Perhaps that's right, certainly McCain does lie about a lot of stuff, so he might be lying about this. Then again, I think it's equally possible that his moderate take on taxes in 2001 was mostly a reflection of personal animus against Bush and he'll govern as a perfectly orthodox anti-tax Republican.

Share This

Comments (30)

Sidney Blumenthal would like nothing better than for Obama to lose. Don't listen to him.

I always thought Blumenthal was a smart guy, but now I wonder. The point of making McCain the continuation of Bush is that McCain himself has to paint himself that way. If he tries to distance himself from Bush, he'll lose the base (witness McCain's comments on global warming last week and the subsequent howls of anger on talk radio).

Fresh from his brilliant success in helping Hillary lose the nomination, he wants to give advice to the nominee? It to laugh. Go away, Sid.

Yeah sure. Don't repeat over and over that this guy is exactly the same as Bush on every important issue. Just go along with the moderate, straight-talking, maverick, environmentalist, war-hero image and try to beat him on those terms.

Blumenthal is an idiot.

Basically, I think that despite their differences Bush really would end up substantially "McSame" as Bush

Tautologically, yes.

(What poor bastard had to edit & proof MY's book? He or she needs a drink.)

Democratic Attorney General Jay Nixon Enjoys Huge Early Lead in Missouri's Race for Governor:

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=56747b35-b96a-4d18-98cd-ade699e03dc6

Look at the Crosstabs. Then donate what you can to help him keep the lead through the summer & fall. This campaign will be one of the most expensive, tough, and important races in the country.

http://www.nixonforgovernor.com/

Why bother trying to make this comparison if you are going to be so transparent, bias-wise?

"McCain is clearly better than Bush and clearly worse than Obama" - doesn't explain anything except your needs. You lost me completely when you said McCain has been "weasely" on torture. Please elaborate.

For the record, your prioritization of presidential issues is:

1. Foreign Policy
2. detainee treatment and torture
3. Climate
4. education
5. budget
6. immigration
7. taxes
8. health care

Ridiculous.

scottst

Surely the best way for the Democrats to win in the general election is to encourage the notion that John McCain is an American Hero Maverick who Defies George W. Bush Jr. and Thinks Independently and is A Courageous Leader and whose current record and rhetoric is entirely the prolongation of the Bush Jr record is completely unimportant.

Social security! Social security!

Matt shouldn't forget that, and neither should Obama. McCain was fully behind the move to phase out social security.

I worry that because Obama had an episode in the primary when he thought it would be wise to attack Hillary for being unwilling to "change" social security, he might view a fight with McCain as risky. He shouldn't. McCain's record is terrible.

Crap:

whose current record and rhetoric which is entirely the prolongation of the Bush Jr record is completely unimportant

Let me be even clearer about what a fucking idiot Blumenthal is.

Given the racist swift-boating that McCain's asshole buddies will do this summer and fall, if we can't tie McCain to Bush, we lose.

McCain has voted for Bush policies 95% of the time.

On foreign policy, McCain is even more for war than Bush. On this front he would be disastrous. Expect a war with Iran if McCain were elected president.

On domestic policy, McCain is the same except on the environment.

McCain would never ever compromise on the tax issue, because he and all Republicans remember the first Bush president raising taxes and the political price he paid in his own party. Because of that episode no Republican will ever raise taxes.

The McCain of 2008 is not like the McCain of 2000. He has sold his soul for the nomination.

As for the campaign strategy, of course McCain will be tied down with Bush. It already is working to a certain extent. Polling indicates that McCain's ties to Bush are more of a concern than Obama's past ties to Wright or even Hillary's ties to Bill.

McCain's policies are indeed very similar to Bush's and people will definitely come to understand that.

In fact, while McCain's personality is a lot different than Bush and he does make an effort to reach out more than Bush, on policies he is just as divisive as Bush.

So for instance, McCain is going to speak to the NAACP but will not give the black community anything more of what they want politically than Bush. He makes appearances on the late night comedy shows but will not give young people anything of what they want politically.

I still believe that only Obama holds out the promise of uniting the country again in any meaningful way.

Hillary would certainly divide and polarize. I think if McCain were elected this country would once again be very divided, because for all of his personality virtues, on policy he would divide.

On war, McCain would divide. On most domestic issues, like the tax issue, McCain would divide. On healthcare, McCain would divide.

This country's only hope for a renewed sense of unity and hope is Obama.

Obama will be forced in debate to admit that he has no exit plan for Iraq and that his economic program amounts to raising taxes and fees on the middle class while he dresses in a pullover and toasts soy dogs and lectures us as to how much better we will be for the pain of it all.
McCain will win the "strong on National Defense and cut taxes" platform because he is running against that tax and spend Liberal America hating Black with a capital "Wright" Hussein Obama.
The people digging for ponies here are the AA's and latte drinking progressives who refuse to deal with the fact that their Rainbow Coalition is way short of a Happy Meal.
So scrunch over Naderites, we gotta make room on that bus to hell...

By far the two most important issues in any federal elelction are fiscal and military policy. On both of these, McCain is as bad or worse than Bush. He jumped on board the tax cut bandwagon and he's more catholic than the neocon popes on Iraq and Iran.

On the most important issues, McCain is as bad or worse than Bush. End of story.

his promises on the tax issue would make it impossible for him to govern as a moderate even if he were inclined to do so.

What does this mean? Extending the Bush tax cuts automatically makes you a right-winger? Even if you compromise on every other issue?

I think it's important to remember that a President John McCain will have to deal with a Democratically controlled House and Senate, and therefore will not have a free hand on domestic issues. He will not be in a position to extend the Bush tax cuts unilaterally. I think Blumenthal is correct that most Americans do not see McCain as a carbon copy of Bush since he is clearly not one. That said I don't think linking McCain to Bush is a terrible strategy for Obama to continue to pursue, so long as he doesn't over-play his hand and undermine his own credibility by resorting to caricature.

scottst,
I'm not sure what you mean by "needs," but the scientific community is in agreement that Obama's climate change policies are superior to McCain's, and McCain's are superious to Bush's.

McCain was weasely about torture when he claimed to fight against it, then co-authored a "compromise" that gave Bush all the cover he needed to continue torturing.

SCOTTST-

For an explanation on "weasely" on tourture, I refer you to any of the accounts of his "anti-torture" negotiations with the administration in 2006. He grandstanded, got his usual favorable maverick-y press and then caved to Bush on the whole thing (while declaring victory).

He's done this on a variety of issues over the years.

In a half-hearted defense of Blumenthal, I think he's arguing that McCain's image will defeat the kind of attack that's being promoted here. Not that it isn't a just accusation. Blumenthal's point, like lots of people who get paid for their shady words, is a negative one. He doesn't say what he'd use as an attack instead.

This came up a bit when Obama said each of the 3 candidates would be a better president than Bush, and there was much teethgnashing of the "oh noes he didn't stick to the McSame story!" But Bush isn't McCain, there are real differences, and a strategy of sticking your fingers in your ears and chanting "Are so! Are so!" whenever this is pointed out will, I guarantee, alienate Independents who don't, as a rule, despise McCain like they now do Bush.

When a chance presents itself to tie Bush and McCain together, as it did this week, one should leap on it. That's what Obama did. And I think there's a very strong argument to make regarding McCain's flipflopping on Bush's tax cuts--the Republicans have completely blown their ability to run as fiscal conservatives, and Obama can usefully contrast his pay as you go BlueDog Democrat (with nods to Bill and Al) with McCain's claim that those tax cuts and the ballooning deficit are somehow sound fiscal policy--that will turn a lot of independents. (The same argument can be made on torture, and is a big reason I find McCain less appealing now than in December, but the taxes is likely a more mainstream argument.)

So Blumenthal has a strong point. Don't do McCain any favors by helping to disentangle him from his would-be clinging shrub, but chanting McSame, while energizing an already-adequately-energized base, turns off people who can see it's not true. Obama is ahead of the DNC on this.

In Re: "Weasely" on torture:

In addition to Howie's critique above, The Mavericky McCain(TM) in the past few months voted against restricting the CIA to interrogation techniques to those in the US military's Army Field Manual. Apparently, torture is not torture if conducted by an intelligence officer.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2008/02/senator-mccain-is-against-torture-but.html

What does this mean? Extending the Bush tax cuts automatically makes you a right-winger? Even if you compromise on every other issue?

Yes.

And if you are intent on bankrupting the government and increasing income disparity, your ability to "compromise" on other domestic issues is severely limited.

It all depends on how much McCain wants to focus on foreign policy and have a free hand there. If he really wants to be able to do what he wants in the Middle East and elsewhere then he'll cut any deal he can with a strongly Democratic Congress, basically going along with them on domestic policy and thumbing his nose at Grover Norquist and the Religious Right.

I'm going to have to partly disagree with Matt and the commenters here. For some reason, very much reinforced by the GOP's and its base's distrust of McCain himself, the average voter his a view of McCain that is strongly at odds with the (current) reality of his positions. Regardless of Blumenthal's bias here, it really may be true that it will be next to impossible to convince Americans that McCain is just like Bush. And if that's true, then trying to convince them of this will only call into question the credibility of those trying to do so.

I really don't know how true this is. That is, I really don't know how true it is that A) Americans have a radically different idea of McCain than his reality; and B) trying to convince them otherwise is bound to fail; and C) failing at convincing them otherwise is bound to damage the credibility of those making this argument. Any of one those three assertions are contestable.

But even if they are contestable, it's a valid argument to be made when considering electoral strategy. I mean, I think it really is cause for concern that Americans have such an incorrect idea of McCain. Conventional wisdom is that this is an opportunity to correct them, that they'll see the light if they're just told the truth. But past experience with Bush himself has shown that the opposition simply telling people the truth about a politician is insufficient to convince them. Almost everything that the left was saying about Bush has finally been accepted as true by the majority of Americans; but eight years ago trying to convince them of this convinced Americans that the left was paranoid and terribly biased.

Blumenthal's argument is an extreme. A much more reasonable point to be made is that these things are arguable and therefore a point of concern that must be evaluated very carefully and strategy chosen with these questions in mind. Not that we shouldn't attempt to show Americans who McCain really is, but we should be sensitive to the possibility that the attempt might be failing and to try something different.

It's wishful thinking to just assume that removing the scales from the average voter's eyes with regard to McCain will be an easy task. It quite possibly may not be, and the attempt quite possibly may backfire. We should be prepared for this and be willing to modify or abandon a losing strategy when it becomes apparent.

MattY writes: On immigration, they're identical business-oriented cheap labor Republicans willing to try to cut a deal with liberal groups.

That's more than I would have given MattY credit for, but, of course, it sugarcoats the fact that those on his side are more than willing to accept money from and do the bidding of big business. One group on his side is even collaborating with a foreign government to enable IllegalImmigration. Hint: it's a group you've heard of.

" . . . I think it's equally possible that his moderate take on taxes in 2001 was mostly a reflection of personal animus against Bush . . ."

Wouldn't surprise me in the least. When I lived in AZ (1993-2002), I was surprised by the amount of personally negative press McC got from the Arizona Republic -- and a lot of it was about what a vindictive SOB he is.

I've talked about this with some Republicans at work. They agree that "McSame" isn't credible, and so won't work--because there are the enumerated differences.

OTOH, they agree that we, the Dems, can correctly argue that, on the most important issues (Iraq, the economy/tax cuts, health care), McCain's policies ARE a continuation of Bush's.

If Blumenthal was making the point in my first paragraph, he's right. If he's simply saying to lay off trying to hitch McCain to Bush, then he's badly wrong--the more subtle version is, by far, Obama's best argument for why not to go with the other guy. Kathy F., at the top, may well be right.

I've talked about this with some Republicans at work. They agree that "McSame" isn't credible, and so won't work--because there are the enumerated differences.

OTOH, they agree that we, the Dems, can correctly argue that, on the most important issues (Iraq, the economy/tax cuts, health care), McCain's policies ARE a continuation of Bush's.

If Blumenthal was making the point in my first paragraph, he's right. If he's simply saying to lay off trying to hitch McCain to Bush, then he's badly wrong--the more subtle version is, by far, Obama's best argument for why not to go with the other guy. Kathy F., at the top, may well be right.

I've talked about this with some Republicans at work. They agree that "McSame" isn't credible, and so won't work--because there are the enumerated differences.

OTOH, they agree that we, the Dems, can correctly argue that, on the most important issues (Iraq, the economy/tax cuts, health care), McCain's policies ARE a continuation of Bush's.

If Blumenthal was making the point in my first paragraph, he's right. If he's simply saying to lay off trying to hitch McCain to Bush, then he's badly wrong--the more subtle version is, by far, Obama's best argument for why not to go with the other guy. Kathy F., at the top, may well be right.

"(What poor bastard had to edit & proof MY's book? He or she needs a drink.)"

Actually it was THREE "poor bastards" - one committed suicide a third of the way in, the second managed to get through another third and has merely been sent to a retirement home as a burn-out, and the last third turned the third editor - who was gay - into a drama queen.


Comments closed June 05, 2008.

Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.