Rich Lowry & Ramnesh Ponnuru of National Review have co-authored an article arguing that John McCain’s current campaign is likely to fail (a fair assessment, given the state of McCain’s campaign) and offering some free advice on strategery for Maverick.
Their thesis is that McCain should target whites (and, to a lesser extent, Hispanics) without college degrees, who were unreceptive to Obama in the primaries, but important to winning swing states as Michigan, Missouri, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Mexico, and Nevada.
Lowry & Ponnuru then argue the negative and positive campaign they see McCain waging to get those votes:
The case against Obama need not (and probably should not) be subtle. In a nutshell: He’s too inexperienced, too liberal, and as a result too risky. McCain has to argue that a man who has been in the Senate a mere four years, and whose most significant résumé items prior to that are a stint in the Illinois legislature and time as a community organizer, is not ready to be commander-in-chief in dangerous times. The flip-flop charges against Obama will achieve nothing for McCain unless they are deployed to make him look risky: immature (he doesn’t know what he thinks), weak (he caves to pressure), and dishonest (he tries to fool people).
On top of this, McCain has to go after Obama’s liberalism, which verges on radicalism. The congealing conventional wisdom is that attacks on liberalism are “tired.†But there is no evidence that the “change†the public wants is left-wing. McCain is deeply averse (for no good reason) to hitting Obama over the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But Obama’s record, from Illinois to the Senate to the campaign trail, provides many other openings. The bottom line is that Obama is a liberal you can’t trust and can’t, in every sense, afford.
These points are generally sound. Obama’s undistinguished public record is easy to outline, but the factoid which may sell it is that Obama decided to run for president after serving 143 working days in the US Senate, as compared with the 1966 days McCain spent in the Hanoi Hilton.
The gloss I would put on Lowry & Ponnuru here would be to show the blatant dishonesty of Obama’s flip-flops, based on his record. It is one thing to say that National Journal has ranked Obama as the most liberal member of the Senate in just 143 working days; it is another to give examples from his entire career.
A classic example is the questionnaire Obama filled out in his 1996 campaign flatly opposing the death penalty, supporting socialized medicine, opposing any restrictions on abortion, and supporting all sorts of gun control laws. Obama was caught dishonestly blaming his staff after his handwriting was found on an amended version of the questionnaire.
Similarly, Camp McCain could demonstrate Obama’s liberal positions, based on Obama’s record. Obama is someone who would not vote to restrict sex-oriented businesses from opening near schools or places of worship, claiming he was trying to avoid mandates on local authorities. But Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America. Then you could show the video of Obama flip-flopping on gun rights.
If McCain would like to stick with the war, Obama is the candidate who refused to vote on a Senate resolution condemning MoveOn for its “General Betray Us†ad last year, but criticizes it now. And having done so, McCain should ask Obama if he still thanks MoveOn for their endorsement and looks forward to working with them.
However, given that the economy is now the top issue to voters, McCain could point out that Obama is promising a middle-class tax cut, but he already voted this year to hike taxes on people making as little as $31,850 annually. Moreover, Obama’s tax proposals involve tax hikes of at least $2 trillion over the next 10 years.
Obama is also vulnerable on the related issue of energy and gas prices. He is against popular proposals for offshore drilling (which hurts him in swing states). He is against getting oil from Canada.  Obama favors government handouts for corn-based ethanol that enrich his backers but raise our food prices and may contribute to global warming.  Obama’s opposition to offshore drilling is one plank of a platform that supports higher gas prices, a recycled, failed windfall profits tax, and getting you to turn your thermostat down when the winter comes.
On the issue of the housing market, McCain could tout just about any proposal, just to bring up that while Obama has railed against subprime lenders, his camapign has been awash in them, all the way up to his national campaign-finance chairwoman.
As for the positive side, Lowry & Ponnuru serve up somewhat contradictory advice.  At one point, they suggest that “McCain’s selling points are exactly the reverse of Obama’s: He is experienced, in the political mainstream, and a steady hand.” Later, they suggest that — per Democratic pollster Douglas Schoen — “McCain must link [the] negative Obama theme with his own strong, economic reform message in order to distance himself from Bush and have his own distinctive domestic agenda.”ÂÂ
I do not blame Lowry & Ponnuru on this score. To the contrary, I wrote something similar on July 8:
It may be more useful to start from the premise that this cycle is shaping up as a “change†election. From this perspective, the basic problem for each candidate is laid out in recent Gallup polling. Roughly two-thirds of Americans worry that electing McCain would effectively lead to a “third Bush term.â€Â Conversely, about half say they are concerned that Obama would go too far in changing Bush policies. Moreover, those percentages remain almost identical when looking at independent voters.
Thus, I would argue that Camp McCain’s does not need to sell McCain as experienced; most everyone knows McCain has more experience than Obama. Rather, McCain’s task is to positively position himself as a change from what is unpopular about the Bush administration (except Iraq), while convincing voters that Barack Obama would bring too much change of a sort they do not want. The image Lowry & Ponnuru suggest of the fighter against Washington and the status quo is not only classic McCain (politically and personally), but also appealing to the Jacksonians who supported Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primaries. However, McCain should also be careful to remain the “happy warrior,” while arguing that Obama’s lecturing us on our thermostats is the old, tired politics of Jimmy Carter.
The primary problem with Lowry’s & Ponnuru’s advice, however, is that they are not the campaign and they are offering this advice in July. There is simply little evidence that McCain or his staff is receptive to any such advice. Indeed, keeping Mike Murphy out of the campaign suggests they have rejected going the Full Maverick, though they may still accentuate the negatives listed above. Moreover, even if the campaign had an epiphany along these lines, there has been little evidence to date that they could carry it off competently.
likely to fail? But we’ve got ’em right where we want ’em…
Ponnuru I think needs to stand in The Corner with the other losers I think.
hf,
Although that op-ed was pathetic, I have no doubt that by the end of this cycle, the RNC will argue to independents that they should vote Maverick as a check on one-party control.
Good point. Especially when it’s the party of death and all.
Not to completely dismiss him, but he’s a strange boy I think.
WRT the “happy warrior”: To some degree this is backfiring. Its pretty clear by now the MSM is ignoring McCain unless/until he shows his touted irritability/anger. And when he said that he’d rather lose an election than a war, it came acrost as “I’m cool with losing this.” Not what you want people to think.
I’m almost of the opinion now that he should show some of his anger. Righteous pique, not hot-headed nonsense. Preferably not against domestic Lefties, but maybe even them if its done in the service of the People and not the campaign. It’ll show some spirit and guts.
But he’ll have to earn the right to do it now. Prime the well or it’ll look like he just went off out of nowhere [which is where he is right now].
urthshu,
Good point. I would say that you have to want to win, and look like it. But in ads, debates, and even in comments likely to be soundbited, an angry McCain will risk coming across as Crotchety Old Man. There are probably some in the press that would love to air McCrotchety from now until Nov., so he can’t play their game, either.
Problem is, the MSM won’t be airing anything at all if he doesn’t. He can make all the best-reasoned arguments vs. O! he wants, but if at the end of the day no one hears it, it matters naught.
He’s not sound-bitey so he probly needs to just be bitey for a bit. Maybe he’s not as good at rope-a-dopes like W is, but also O! isn’t the same case as a Kerry or Gore was, so the rope-a-dope doesn’t work as well. O! needs to be attacked frontally b/c he expects his race and likability to cover for him.
I recognize the risk but nothing’s being gained by the present strategy other than holding ground [which isn’t bad in itself].
I don’t see this as getting McCain anywhere. The only point Karl makes that could stick is the offshore drilling which has caught the Democrats flat-footed. But it looks like McCain is pushing that about as hard as he can already. I’m not sure McCain’s in as tough a spot as conservative commentators believe. It’s a fact that McCain has high favorables (about 57%) and it’s very probable that McCain’s favorables are more solid than Obama’s. McCain’s strategy of keeping pressure on Obama about Iraq and oil could plausibly work to wear away at Obama’s support and allow McCain to catch Obama at the wire. Obviously, there are risks to that strategy in that McCain might never move the numbers. But it gives McCain a fighting chance as long as voters still find him likable. If McCain went negative in the way Lowry/Ponnuru suggest, he risks sounding like a “typical Republican” in a year when voters intensely dislike “typical Republicans.” That strikes me as a bigger risk than what McCain’s doing now.
OK … Who are you and what have you done with the Prof?!
Hmmm.
My idea on how McCain could possibly win in 2008?
Stop fucking pissing off conservatives you old pissant!
For a goddamn start at least.
With due respect to the Prof., let me suggest tht if the economy is sliding downhill — or voters see it as such — pointing out that O! voted to raise taxes on the middle class in February will stick with more than a few people. And McCain can point it out without souding McGrumpy.
Plus, while this discussion has focused on McCain the candidate, we should not forget that we are talking about a campaign. Not all of the negatives have to come out of his mouth. In fact, few realize how much Camp McCain/RNC is already spending on TV — and I would wager that not all of it is positive advertising.
Especially when losing the election means losing the war, which should be part of that statement should he use it again.
Thats just it – he should never use that statement again.
Not many folks have a clue what ‘losing a war’ means, for God’s sake. They don’t even know what making sacrifices for a war means, so how can anybody he’s trying to reach respond to that? They’ve no basis to make a response, no experiences with defeat.
He can maybe talk about boat people, show some video of the crap they went through, tie their history to a future ME refugee possibility. He can maybe talk about how, if the Terrorists win, then trade and trust go down the drain, how worldwide liberty and democracy takes a hit and we step down in the world. But there’s no guarantee that anybody will understand it.
Anyway – never say “lose” is all I mean. He’s coming on as the quitter right now.
_ahem_
Ponnuru
Indeed!
Energy, judicial appointments, national security, and Obama’s hard-left positions provide McCain with more than enough to beat over Obama’s head. But he’s not doing it.
Why? I’m convinced he and his advisers are stupid, couldn’t care less about winning, or are trying to throw the election.
you know Karl…..don’t you think McCains confusion over the timeline of the anbar awakening and the surge is kinda problematic?
I mean….Mccain thought the Surge caused the Anbar success.
Sort of reveals a deeep lack of understanding of the situ, or else a PROFOUND INABILITY TO REMEMBER BRIEFINGS.
MCCAIN IS SENILE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
Meme #3 in nishit’s limited repetoire.
How about Baracky’s ability to remember his friends? Or his committee assignments? Or basic American history?
Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?
Hell no !
Senile guy or retarded guy……..tough choice. Except the senile guy has forgotten more about foreign policy than the retarded guy will ever know. Because, you know, he’s retarded.
But, of course, the retarded guy has more charisma in his little finger than the senile guy has in his whole, hung-from-the-ceiling-by-the-arms-in-back-until-the-shoulders-went-out-of-socket body. But what do I know about charisma? I think Romney has charisma, but then again, I’m tall and white and have all my hair (no offense to any bald people here, sorry chrome-domes). But it seems that charisma can only be scripted, and when a guy, like Romney, or W, for that matter can speak off the cuff, get his facts straight, and develop lasting personal relationships, that’s just fakery or buffoonery.
By the way, where are all the people who are saying that they’ve been close personal friends with the retarded guy for many years?
[…] is why my commentary on the Lowry/Ponnuru advice suggested that it might be more effective to tie the negative messaging […]