Back to Clive Crook's blog homepage
Column: Why it is all uphill for McCain
October 6, 2008
Time is running out for John McCain’s campaign. He is behind in the polls and the gap is widening. His campaign has decided to shut up shop in Michigan, a state it recently believed it could win. Tuesday’s televised debate with Barack Obama – just one more encounter is scheduled, on October 15 – has therefore assumed an even greater significance. Mr McCain must stop the rot. His disadvantages in the race are such that it is difficult now to see how.
Mr McCain finds himself in a curious position. He entered the race as an experienced and well-known candidate, much-liked, with years in the Senate behind him. He was running against a virtually unknown novice, with barely any legislative achievements to boast of – and a black man with a funny name, to boot. Mr McCain was the known quantity, the safer choice, literally the elder statesman and Mr Obama had everything to prove. Yet with four weeks to go, the election is being run by both sides as though the opposite were true.
Mr Obama looks unhurried and presidential, exuding natural authority. He is running as though he were the popular incumbent. Meanwhile, the eager Mr McCain dashes to and fro, hoping to shake things up, striving for attention with one daring stroke after another.
The remainder of this column can be read here. Please post comments below.
True enough, all of the above. But what is missing from Clive Crook’s comments is the fact that that McCain is, with only minor differences, part and parcel of the Bush politics of running the government in favor of the wealthy corporate-military elite, with only lip service and window dressing for the needs of ordinary Americans.
If he were not, at bottom, a typical Republican, perhaps more voters would be willing to forgive his erratic behavior, his weird choice of a running mate, and so many other features of his campaign that must have many of his wealthy corporate backers tearing their hair out.
But the the current economic crisis has finally focused so many Americans on the fact that they have been voting against their own economic interests at least since the time of Ronald Reagan that the game is up. Of course (or should I say of Corsi), McCain and his backers will make a last, desperate effort to distract the voters between now and next month.
We will be hearing, once again, all of the tired, worn out, but no less vicious smears about Wright, Ayres, Farrakhan, et al., and there will be furious (and well prepared and organized) attempts to stop black, Latino, and new voters and anyone else suspected of supporting Obama from voting in crucial swing states, but the American voters have now had enough.
This is why, even if McCain had not made a single one of the mistakes that Clive Crook mentions, his campaign would still be a lost cause - that is, unless he can still eke out a win by a combination of character assassination and vote suppression. My prediction is that he will leave no stone unturned in this direction, because it is his only hope.
Posted by: algasema | October 6th, 2008 at 2:33 am | Report this commenthttp://www.keatingeconomics.com/
Posted by: meljomur | October 6th, 2008 at 6:31 am | Report this commentGreetings:
It would be wonderful if Clive Crook’s assessment of the forthcoming presidential election was correct. Unfortunately, I am less sanguine.
Since he lives in the UK, he may miss some important items, and the lack of any response by the U.S. media — of course, facts seldom stand in the way of how Americans vote:
1) The day after the Vice Presidential debate, Governor Palin revealed that her net worth was approximately $2 million. Hence, she is not middle class (as defined in the U.S.) Thus, when she says that she has been without medical coverage and paid out-of-pocket it should be pointed out that her situation is atypical (see Washington Post, October 6, 2008).
2) There was a paid advertisement by a group of prominent oncologists and other persons in the medical profession pointing out that melanoma frequently returns. Senator McCain’s medical records (unredacted) should be released and evaluated by a neutral panel of exports (NY Times, October 5, 20008).
3) Governor Palan earned approximately $168,000 in 2007. She paid only $25,000 in federal taxes. Her return should be examined by a forensic accountant. Furthermore, as someone who got the nomination in part to please the Christian Right, one wonders why she did not tithe.
4) Gwen Ifel should have been replaced as the moderator for the last presidential debate but is writing a book on Senator Obama. Given her conflict of interest, she may have been less aggressive in her questioning of Governor Palin that she otherwise might have been. Indeed she is not helping the American public to assess the candidates as they are.
5) Governor Palin recent comments about Senator Obama verge on racism and an assault on his patriotism — they should be widely condemned.
In the last debate, Governor Palin made some statement explaining away why did not have knowledge in a particular area since she has only been running for 5 weeks. The American press covers the election like a sporting event. It reports current news without context and having done now research (unlike most FT columnists ! ! !)
Adlai Stevenson when told by a woman that “all thinking Americans” would vote for him — he quipped “thank you, but I need a majority to win.”
Cheers.
Posted by: Ethan S. Burger | October 6th, 2008 at 1:22 pm | Report this commentMcCain is a tired old man.
He is, in most of his views, indistinguishable from Bush, history’s most incompetent president.
He has selected a a bouncy, empty-headed cheerleader for a running mate.
America is in the midst of several disasters, together almost certainly representing an historical watershed, the beginning of the decline of the American Empire.
I do think those facts alone are more than adequate to explain McCain’s position, indeed to explain the near certainty that Obama will win and win big.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | October 6th, 2008 at 1:50 pm | Report this commentEthan S. Burger may be dead wrong about where Clive Crook lives, since I believe that Clive has written that he is now living in the US, but Mr. Burger could not possibly be more on point about Sarah Barracuda. She may have passed the folksiness test, but what about the character test? How can she claim to pass that after so enthusiastically joining in on the smear campaign against Obama based on the William Ayres “Weatherman” attacks, which took place when Obama was 6 years old (or was he 8)?
Clive Crook also has an interesting book review in today’s FT print edition about a book on immigration called “The Closing of the American Border”, by Edward Alden. I haven’t seen the book, but, according to the review, the main reason for America’s current reign of anti-immigrant terror (my phrase, not Mr. Crook’s, or, so far as I am aware, Mr Alden’s) is an overemphasis on national security to the exclusion of a rational approach to immigration policy.
If this is indeed the theme of the book, as Clive Crook suggests, then Mr. Alden appears to be overlooking the real reason for most of the anti-immigrant persecution taking place in the US today. This, pure and simple, is anti-Latino, anti-Asian racism.
What could the epidemic of “English only” proposals in many states and municipalities, the raids against Mexican and and Central American workers in meat packing plants and countless other workplaces, the defeat of last years “amnesty” proposal that would have benefited millions of mainly Latin American immigrants, and, above all, the current rash of right wing propaganda attempting to blame even the Wall Street banking crisis on Latino immigrant homeowners have to do with the “war on terror”? Answer: not very much.
Most writers on immigration also do not seem to be aware that some of the harshest laws on the books today, such as the one mandating deportation of long-standing legal permanent residents for minor offenses committed many years in the past date from the Clinton era, i.e. well before 9/11.
The focus on Islamic extremist terrorism in this country may go back only seven years. But racist anti-immigrant prejudice in what is now the US is older than this country itself. It has been around at least since the time of Benjamin Franklin’s anti-German rants in colonial Pennsylvania, and it is not going away any time soon.
Having said this, I was initially surprised that immigration has not so far been an election issue, but the reason is clear - even the most bigoted, anti-immigrant far right Republicans know that Senator John “McAmnesty” (used to be, that is, to paraphrase Mary “Democrat”) cannot win without Latino votes.
Posted by: algasema | October 6th, 2008 at 2:32 pm | Report this commentI agree with Mr. Burger regarding Senator Obama’s prospects.
Mr. Burger you might read the blurb on Mr. Crook at the top of page where one write comments. Explicitly stated: “I moved from Britain to the US in 2005″.
The McCain campaign is propagandizing furiously on Mr. Ayers, Reverend White, and so on. All smears that will only increase, but completely irrelevant to anything.
Having just read Jeffrey Toobin’s book on the deliberate subverting of the will of the people in the 2000 Presidential election in Florida by James Baker - still considered to be a “statesman” - as the hatchet man for the Bush campaign, I put no action - falsifying vote counts, preventing voters from voting similar to the actions used by Southern whites to prevent blacks from voting and so on - past the Republicans.
The media should excoriate continually not only the McCain campaign, Senator McCain and Governor Palin, but the untold Republican politician-apologists, for this behavior.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 6th, 2008 at 3:25 pm | Report this commentAny thought that the US housing market has ever been effectively deregulated is just nonsense.
US Housing is completely and poorly regulated, with terrible results of the housing mess, segregation, and the inherent corruption of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
McCain Palin can still win if they can effectively remind voters that the Democrats caused the housing mess and the Republicans had to fix it. Sen. Obama along with his sponsor Tony Rezko developed “affordable housing” with government money that has been a complete failure.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 6th, 2008 at 3:34 pm | Report this commentClive Crook makes two key points about John McCain’s problems:
“it is difficult to be both a maverick and a safe choice.”
“in both opposing Mr Obama and putting distance between himself and President Bush, Mr McCain became an unknown quantity and hence a risk.”
On the most important issue of the day, the economic crisis, McCain does not have the support of his own party in Congress. A majority of Republicans in the House of Representatives voted against the rescue plan he supported.
So, if he were elected president, McCain would have to rely on Democratic support in Congress.
That would aggravate uncertainty, just when voters want more security.
Obama helped to bring more Democrats behind the plan without trying too hard and therefore without associating himself too closely with its impact.
Obama also re-assured people by presenting himself with his team of economic advisers. He may not have much government or business experience, but they do. Many served during the Clinton presidency, and voters associate them with that period’s relative stability and prosperity.
Of course, there are still imponderables. How will the race issue play out? In other words, are people telling pollsters the truth?
Posted by: Edward S | October 6th, 2008 at 3:48 pm | Report this commentJBP: Given that you comment in these weblogs regularly, I assume that you are not the usual brainless political hack for the Republican right-wing as the new arrival “Mary” seems to be, just deluded about reality.
“the Democrats caused the housing mess and the Republicans had to fix it.”
This statement for example is flatout false.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 6th, 2008 at 4:01 pm | Report this commentWendell,
You give me too much credit, but there really isn’t much question as to the role of misregulation of Freddie and Fannie in this mess. McCain, Bush and the Republicans made a reasonable effort to stop the madness.
The worst I have read (in the Economist) is that it is Bush’s fault for not having enough political clout to keep the Democrats from their mischief at FNMA and Freddie.
I suppose it is more accurate to state that the housing mess was caused by human greed, but greed has always been with us, while GRE’s are only 75 years old or so.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 6th, 2008 at 4:45 pm | Report this commentFurther to my previous post and to Wendell Murray’s above comment, some right wing zealots, such as columnist Michelle Malkin, who writes in Rupert Murdoch’s New York Post, are trying to blame Latino immigrants for the entire Wall Street financial meltdown, based on the half-truth that many of the victims of predatory subprime mortgage lending were members of the Hispanic community.
Evidently professional immigrant -haters such as Ms. Malkin (who comes from a Philippine immigrant family herself) think that the Wall Street crisis was caused by “Los Hermanos Lehman”, “Murillo Lynch” and “Alianza Immigrante Grande” (AIG).
Posted by: algasema | October 6th, 2008 at 4:55 pm | Report this comment“to blame Latino immigrants for the entire Wall Street financial meltdown”
This is part of the McCain campaign’s and its Republican Party allies’ current talking point list that is inundating television and other media. The deluge of all the right-wing crackpots, e.g. AM radio’s right-wing talk-show hosts, into any media outlet (aside from their own) that will take them, is upon us for the next month.
The main talking points are to target the non-white poor, few of whom applied for and received mortgages in any case not to mention played no role in the current economic crisis, and tar Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as Democrat-controlled institutions, then blame those two for the credit crisis.
Political Republican operatives such as Senator McCain’s campaign manager, Rick Davis, were more than willing to accept millions of dollars in fees from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac - while brazenly lying about the fact - even if not doing anything in return for the fees.
Usual venal nonsense from the Republican right-wing, but clear that those are the tactics now being implemented. The onslaught will continue unabated, but has to be countered with facts and the truth.
JBP: Just wanted to let you know that I patiently read your comments, even if they originate in a world somewhere far from any reality I am aware of. Despite their content I do not include you in the Republican nut-case category, just as a misguided, but otherwise conscientious, weblogger.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 6th, 2008 at 5:36 pm | Report this commentLoaning people more money than they will pay back harms the banks, not the loan recipients. A good question for Congress, why did banks loan people more money than they ever expected payment on? People of all colors (and income levels) got loans that they could not pay back…Why?
McCain may have had an employee or 10 that worked for a GRE..so what? McCain has a good track record on trying to put the brakes on Fannie and Freddie. Can anyone say the same about Obama/Biden?
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 6th, 2008 at 5:44 pm | Report this comment“why did banks loan people more money than they ever expected payment on”
Simple: the risk of default was passed on ultimately to funds that bought the securities that were created when the mortgage loans were packaged.
It was a huge house of cards that has finally collapsed.
No constraints of any sort existed along the chain starting with residential real estate construction, its markeing and sale and financing over the last 10 or so years.
All parties along that route are to blam, including the average person who foolishly was buying real estate at the retail level, i.e. buying homes to live in or as speculation of continuing price appreciation whose cost the person could never afford based on income.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were just ultimate investors who could borrow in the public markets on a next-to-unlimited basis to then purchase individual mortgages or securities - whatever they were permitted to invest in. Congress was certainly negligent in oversight, but the origin of the negligence stems 100% from the Bush Administration’s and the Republican Congresses’ flagrant disregard for regulation in markets where there was otherwise no check on the obvious-to-everyone-else wild speculation on rising housing prices. This created supply far exceeding demand, particularly in ridiculously expensive residences that will never sell.
The use of derivatives and the allowance of ridiculously high leverage by lightly regulated investment banks and inadequately regulated insurers then came into play, adding to the speculation rather than dampening it.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 6th, 2008 at 6:22 pm | Report this commentIt’s reassuring to see that so many commentors have the wit to see that all the foolish policies and dangerously untrustworthy politicians come from the party they do not support.
Posted by: ad | October 6th, 2008 at 8:02 pm | Report this commentGreetings:
I apologize for not noticing that Clive Crook wrote that he now lives in the States (to the gentleman living in Toronto — you have a better situation).
It would be wonderful if journalists were to corner Governor Palin to get her to define what she means when she describes herself and Senator McCain as “mavericks?” Is it someone who seeing that the electorate opposes what her party supports decides to do the politically expedient thing? Is she really were a maverick, she almost certainly holds different opinions on some issues from Senator McCain — I would like to know what they are. Perhaps it is that she is qualified to be Vice President.
I was glad to hear from Governor Palin that she supports civil unions. I wonder if she thinks that both gay and straight couples should only have the option of entering into civil unions and leave the “marriage” definition to one’s religious institution of choice. What does her “base think about this?”
Lastly, I hope in the Presidential Debate this week that Senator McCain be asked to reveal what foreign policy opinions he solicited from Governor Palin — an individual who has held a passport less than two years and if I remember correctly has only visited 2 countries (Canada and Mexico). While she LOVES Israel — has she ever spoken to an Israeli or knows the editorial views of Ha’aretz and the Jerusalem post?
Cheers (bis)
Posted by: Ethan S. Burger | October 6th, 2008 at 8:55 pm | Report this commentWith respect to these so-called self described “mavericks”, see The Sunday New York Times story in the Week in Review section on the Maverick family of Texas who are outraged every time they hear McCain called a maverick. The original Maverick refused to brand his cows. These unbranded cows became known as Maverick’s cows. The surviving Mavericks say a maverick is someone who refuses to be branded. They say McCain is not a maverick. He is a Republican.
Posted by: claudia | October 6th, 2008 at 10:44 pm | Report this commentI could not claim any expertise on US politics but it always struck me as odd that a country whose citizens are unfailingly polite and gracious tolerate such mean spirited politics and politicians.
Posted by: James Anderson | October 7th, 2008 at 7:56 am | Report this commentThere is a reason why McCain Adviser says that if we “talk about the Economy, we will loose!” That is because they have no good ideas on the economy for the Middle Class. Their ideas and solutions only benefit the rich, well-off and well-connected!
Five Myths of McCain (in Video)!
http://www.rollingstone.com/nationalaffairs/index.php/2008/10/03/five-myths-about-john-mccain/
**********************
McCain Fudges HIs Navey Record
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/10/mccain_fudges_his_navy_record.html
******************************
China Bush Style: “We have been taught to fear and despise China as a communist threat. Simultaneously, our political leaders and the media perpetually preach the benefits of capitalism. Meanwhile the most clear and present threat from China is their capitalism. Made in China is the most published modern phrase. By investing the proceeds of their national productivity they have become the kings of capitalism and are now the primary source of goods worldwide. It is not their pretended politics of communism that we should be concerned about. We already have that here. We have been outsourced, out produced and our intellectual property is infringed, duplicated and returned to our shores by the containership load.” The Creditory System, Hari Heath
Posted by: Angellight | October 7th, 2008 at 12:38 pm | Report this comment“why did banks loan people more money than they ever expected payment on”
Simple: the risk of default was passed on ultimately to funds that bought the securities that were created when the mortgage loans were packaged.
Not sure that is true. WaMu, IndyMac, Wachovia and Countrywide shareholders and executives lost many $billion as risk was not transferred. What prompted these guys to work against commons sense of getting paid back on loans?
I think some examination would lead to identifying over regulation as the problem, rather than de-regulation…but it needs more examination.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 7th, 2008 at 5:24 pm | Report this commentJohn Powers, are you really sure that McCain/Palin are the most capable people around to give this and other very serious related questions the additional examination that we all seem to agree they need? Please be honest.
Quite a few people will be wondering why, if this is so, John McHoover and Evita Palin have such a desperate need to fall back on their despicable tactics of smear and character assassination in order to try to “turn the page” on what so many experts seem to believe is the worst economic crisis in the lifetime of anyone who is not close to 80 years old.
Posted by: algasema | October 7th, 2008 at 7:28 pm | Report this commentLady and the Gramp, as one wag wrote, and she ain’t much of a lady.
Posted by: JOHN CHUCKMAN, TORONTO | October 7th, 2008 at 8:00 pm | Report this commentRoger,
McCain/Palin may not be perfect, but are certainly capable of managing this 10x better than the alternative ticket. Is Obama still out there trying to do his dry cleaning and raise taxes on Oil Companies as some sort of economic policy?
If Sen. Obama considers Bill Ayers an expert on education issues, would he consider Robert Mugabe an expert on economics? Dr. Kervorkian on healthcare?
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 7th, 2008 at 8:30 pm | Report this commentBill Ayers seems to be considered to be a respected professor and expert on education by quite a few people, John. Both he and the world have changed since his bomb-throwing days, when Barack Obama was all of 8 years old.
The economic situation is too serious to spend time on smears and falsehoods about Obama’s patriotism. But, if you want to go that route, what about Palin’s husband’s connection with the Alaska secessionist party, whose leader, reportedly, has made statements about America that would make Wright himself look like a flag-waving leader of the 4th of July parade by comparison.
Despite our many disagreements, you have always stuck pretty closely to the issues. Now “et tu”, are you also going the way of William Kristol, Sarah Barracuda, and Fox News?
Aren’t you flying the white flag of surrender on the issues? Doggone, sure looks like it, I betcha.
Posted by: algasema | October 7th, 2008 at 9:06 pm | Report this commentJBP: Unfortunately I am not interested enough to research the statistics, but no mortgage funder, e.g. Countrywide, would originate mortgage loans or buy mortgage loans originated elsewhere that were at risk of default (outside whatever the company considered to be expected defaults) unless the funder planned to sell them through an investment bank packager to investors.
It was the saleability of the loan packages which ultimately drove everything else. Credit agencies erroneously assigned AAA ratings to the securities backed by the loans because presumably AAA guarantors, e.g. AIG, were providing the guarantees on the securities. Since investment funds wanted to buy securities with AAA ratings and a yield in excess of other AAA-rated securities that drove packagers to demand more loans to package and on down the line.
I agree with you that the details need to be investigated to see exactly what was happening. No doubt there already exist good empirical studies on the subject, but I leave it to the academics to generate a survey of these studies.
Blaming Fannie Mae and Freddie and even stretching further to blame Democratic politicians for their actions is simply politico-partison nonsense. I expect better from you! if not from the McCain campaign and related sleaze purveyors.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 7th, 2008 at 10:34 pm | Report this comment“McCain/Palin may not be perfect”
JBP: I concur with algasema. Admittedly I wear an algasemista (similar to Sandinistas by the way) pin on my lapel rather than an American flag pin, but you are sullying your good name here by being an apologist for these shameless and reprehensible politicians.
You dislike Senator Obama, fine, but supporting the McCain/Palin idiocy puts you in the nutcase category. They have nothing to offer but smears of other people.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 7th, 2008 at 10:41 pm | Report this commentI concur with John Chuckman’s comment. McCain in the debate tonight said he would freeze government spending “except for defense” of course. The truly insane level of “defence” spending in the US is a substantial part of the problem at hand.
Posted by: James Canning | October 8th, 2008 at 2:45 am | Report this commentWendell,
(Is there a politician out there who is not shameless?…)
But very few in the banking industry actually believed the vaporous ratings…leading me to believe that there is more to the agency problem than to a suicidal business plan by the banks. If Countrywide and others really thought they could pawn off all these mortgages, they were certainly proven wrong.
There is anecdotal evidence of higher commissions paid at mortgage brokers for loans put to Fannie and Freddie. Fannie and Freddie also had terrible oversight from Congress to match their terrible business plan. This is the link that need exposed (though I doubt that Congress will look at it).
It really seems to me that Fannie and Freddie are at the heart of the crisis, with Countrywide etc acting like typical profit seeking businesses. As many have said, greed has been with us for an eternity, but the mortgage meltdown only took a few years to sink the market.
JBP
Posted by: John Powers | October 8th, 2008 at 1:08 pm | Report this commentJBP: I am sure an adequate amount of basic analysis will have been done by the time a new Administration and a new Congress take office in January, so we will see with more certainty than we have now what actions by what participants played the material roles in generating the current crisis.
I still suspect that most blame will lie squarely with commissions and omissions by the Bush Administration and the Federal Reserve under Alan Greenspan with the passive or active acquiescence of the Republican-controlled Congresses coincident with the Bush Administration’s tenure, rather than any role played by Democratic politicians or Democratic political influence over the the FNMA and the FHLMC.
Posted by: Wendell Murray | October 8th, 2008 at 4:10 pm | Report this comment