« The Russians Play Chess | Main | An Interesting Contrast »

Strategery

OK, this new (527, not McCain campaign) ad is going to leave a mark. There are still many voters who have never heard of Bil Ayers, and the coverup going on at UIC is just going to make it look worse.

Of course, the Obama camp also started another spork fight with the McCain campaign, and is getting hammered again.

Does a guy who made more than $4 million last year, just got back from vacation on a private beach in Hawaii and bought his own million-dollar mansion with the help of a convicted felon really want to get into a debate about houses? Does a guy who worries about the price of arugula and thinks regular people "cling" to guns and religion in the face of economic hardship really want to have a debate about who's in touch with regular Americans?

The reality is that Barack Obama's plans to raise taxes and opposition to producing more energy here at home as gas prices skyrocket show he's completely out of touch with the concerns of average Americans.

The problem with their strategy, as is often the case, is that they project their own class envy on the voters (just as they project many of their other personal issues).

But by and large, Americans don't envy the rich--they want to be rich. Let's leave aside the amusing fact that by the new Democrat standard that white guys who marry rich women and end up with several houses are to be demonized as out of touch, that John Kerry shouldn't have had a prayer of getting their nomination.

So-called progressives are envious of the wealthy in the classical sense--they not only want what others have, but they want the others not to have it. In fact, the latter is more important to them than the former, so they promote policies that equally distribute poverty, in effect if not intent.

But the American people don't want to take John McCain's houses from him. They just want more house of their own. It's very hard for me to believe that the number of domiciles that John McCain has, or whether or not he knows how many, is going to be an issue on which the election will turn. And as already noted by the McCain campaign, Barack Obama isn't the best messenger in that regard. Nor were John Edwards or John Kerry. I think they'd certainly prefer a guy who came by his houses honestly--by marrying them--to one who acquired his with the help of a convicted felon for favors still unknown.

But what I don't really understand is the McCain strategy at this point. Less than a week before the convention, Senator Obama's polls aren't looking very good, but there's real dynamite in some of the internals of them, in which one poll showed Hillary! ahead of McCain by several points. So who do they want to run against?

If they weaken him too much this week, the Donkeys may come to their senses and come up with another nominee next week. On the other hand, in doing so, they'd shred the party. Of course, the optimal situation is for Obama to come out the nominee, but one badly bloodied by a huge obstreperous floor fight, so maybe they're betting that the Dems won't be able to jettison their flawed messiah without even more damage to the party. So it's in the Republican's interest for them to finally nominate Obama, but in the weakest possible state, and the worse things look for him going into the convention, the more likely that there will be a movement to oust him. But they should hope that it's not successful.

[Update a couple minutes later]

Here's more on Senator Obama and Tony Rezko.

Permalink | Comments (11) | TrackBacks (0)
Technorati Links | Digg It

0 TrackBacks

Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Strategery.

TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.transterrestrial.com/admin/mt-tb.cgi/10125

11 Comments

Alan K. Henderson wrote:

I'll cross-post the comment I just left at Yglesias' place:

----------------

"Elite" and "elitist" are not synonymous. Elites are people of high rank. Elitists are people of high rank who are snobs about it. All elected officials are elites; some were elites before entering office.

Obama idenitified himself as an elitist not with his arugula remark (that's just plain tin-earedness) or his associations with crooks, but with his condescending "clinging to guns and religion." I am unaware of McCain exhibiting snobbery toward the so-called little people (of which I am one), but I do know of his condescending remarks toward Wall Atreet, Big Oil, and Big Pharma. And the McCain-Feingold Censorship Act is a pretty dang elitist bit of legislation, if you ask me.

On another note...yeah, I think $4 mil in personal income qualifies as "rich" - if one is sustaining such income levels with consistency. Nothing wrong with being rich if the riches are honest. But the issue was houses. Rogers should have mentioned the Rezko deal only; Obama's income and vacation have no bearing on the issue.

----------------

August 21, 2008 3:15 PM

Chris Gerrib wrote:

Actually, Rand, the question here is McCain's judgment. McCain says that "the economy's fine," but he's so out of touch with things economic that he doesn't know how many houses he owns. How would he know that the economy's fine? After all - he's the last to be hit. (Beer distributorships are considered highly recession-proof.)

For the record, both candidates are rich, and I don't want to take a single house from John McCain. I would like my Presidential candidate to have some awareness of the economic situation.

Regarding the cited article - tossing in the vacation was weak. Obama was after all born and raised in Hawaii, and has family there.

August 21, 2008 3:49 PM

Rand Simberg wrote:

McCain says that "the economy's fine," but he's so out of touch with things economic that he doesn't know how many houses he owns.

Disregarding the fact that McCain almost certainly does know how many houses he owns, there is no relationship between those two bodies of knowledge.

August 21, 2008 4:02 PM

Mike James wrote:

There couldn't possibly be any upside for the Deocrats coming to their senses. They could still nominate Hillary, de O hasn't got this locked up yet--look for rioting in some urban areas if they do this.

If Obama comes out of the convention weakened--I think he's going into the convention weakened--and loses in the General...look for rioting in urban areas if that happens.

If McCain pulls it out, I expect the the Democrats to retain and strengthen their hold on the Legislative branch, dealing with the Executive branch with their customary good grace, fairness, and desire to place the nation ahead of their partisan interests.

Naw, not really. I think what will really happen is that they will operate with the effectiveness and competence which they have demonstrated for a good two years now.

August 21, 2008 5:36 PM

Chris Gerrib wrote:

Rand, if Obama had waffled like that (and I heard the tape, it's a full-on waffle) you'd be crowing from the rooftops about what an idiot he is. Besides, the reason the Obama camp was able to so quickly put together a list is that it's in the financial disclosures McCain makes as a senator.

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.

August 21, 2008 7:31 PM

Rand Simberg wrote:

Rand, if Obama had waffled like that (and I heard the tape, it's a full-on waffle) you'd be crowing from the rooftops about what an idiot he is

I'd find your prescience in what I would say under hypothetical circumstances amazing, if there was any basis to them.

The fact remains that, contra your and Obama's claims, John McCain did not profess ignorance as to how many houses he owns, your (and his) obfuscation notwithstanding. I can comprehend simple English, even if the two of you cannot.

August 21, 2008 8:49 PM

Leland wrote:

I think it is very fair to call McCain's response a gaff. For instance, a better response might be, "Well I live in one in Arizona and occasionally stay in one in Washington DC, but my wife may have investments in others."

I also think McCain's comment about rich being "$5 million" is a gaff. I do agree and wish that if Congress is unwilling to abolish the confiscatory estate tax, then at least raise it to $5 million. Many people wouldn't understand it, and others have spun the comment to suggest earning $5 million a year. Considering Obama's income, McCain could have said $3 million and then watched Obama's campaign dance around the issue.

It's like McCain's gaff in the ad saying, "worse off than we were 4 years ago". Clue to McCain, Bush isn't running anymore. Big clue McCain, we are worse off than we were 2 years ago before Nancy Pelosi took over the House.

I'm not afraid to point out McCain's dumb errors in judgement. Nor Obama's:

Obama isn't talking about how Rezko got him his $1.8 million home for $1.5 million. He's pretending Billy Ayers is just another neighbor down the street. And yes, Obama has family in Hawaii... His grandmother that he could no more disown with her racist views than he did Reverend Wright. Thanks for the reminder Chris.

August 22, 2008 7:10 AM

Rand Simberg wrote:

a better response might be, "Well I live in one in Arizona and occasionally stay in one in Washington DC, but my wife may have investments in others."

That would have been better, but even better would have been, "...not as many as John Kerry."

August 22, 2008 7:21 AM

Rand Simberg wrote:

I'm not afraid to point out McCain's dumb errors in judgement.

Neither am I, and I've done so on numerous occasions. I was simply pointing out the Obama campaign's even worse judgment in going after him on this and opening up the Rezko can of worms.

August 22, 2008 7:23 AM

Leland wrote:

Neither am I, and I've done so on numerous occasions.

Don't act guilty. I didn't accuse you of anything. I'm responding to Chris's:
Actually, Rand, the question here is McCain's judgment.

See, Rand, you noted the mistake Obama made by going into a class warfare attack, when Obama lives in a $1.5, err $1.8 million mansion. On another blog, another commenter nailed it with Napoleon's "Never interrupt you opponent when he is making a mistake." It's simple strategy. If Obama had shutup, then it would be about McCain's judgment, but Obama spoke up showing his lack of judgment.

Also, no need for Chris to whine about positive comments left or right. First it is your blog. Second, making hypotheticals about Obama's gaffs only serves to remind us of them.

if Obama had waffled like that you'd be crowing from the rooftops about what an idiot he is.
Yep. Sort of like when you mentioned about the stupid McCain things:
If McCain Loses This Election
An Idle Thought

August 22, 2008 1:32 PM

Alan K. henderson wrote:

We need a government that doesn't give a damn about the definition of "rich."

August 23, 2008 2:01 AM

Note: The comment system is functional, but timing out when returning a response page. If you have submitted a comment, DON'T RESUBMIT IT IF/WHEN IT HANGS UP AND GIVES YOU A "500" PAGE. Simply click your browser "Back" button to the post page, and then refresh to see your comment.

Strategery

0 TrackBacks

11 Comments

Leave a comment

About this Entry

Search