-
sponsorship
House Republicans and the McCain campaign are currently blaming Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s speech today introducing the bailout package for its failure. According to this narrative, she managed to alienate a dozen Republicans who otherwise would have voted for the bill.
But read Pelosi’s speech. (Transcript here.)* She wasn’t bashing Republicans; she was bashing Bush. She said the $700 billion price tag “tells us only the costs of the Bush administration’s failed economic policies—policies built on budgetary recklessness, on an anything-goes mentality, with no regulation, no supervision, and no discipline in the system.” Later, she thanked Democratic leaders Barney Frank and Rahm Emanuel while conspicuously omitting minority leader John Boehner. But she did thank Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson. Doesn’t he count?
Granted, it may have sounded unpleasant to sensitive Republican ears. But GOP members can hardly object to Bush-bashing—in fact, many of them have done it themselves. Vulnerable GOP congressmen have scrambled to distance themselves from the president on Iraq, immigration, Katrina, and now economic policy. Sure, Pelosi could have been more gracious to Boehner and other Republicans who voted for the package, especially after such delicate negotiations. But her speech also showed Democrats that you can be for the bailout and still run on a Bush-bashing economic message. It’s a message you’d think would resonate with Republicans, too.
So what’s the advantage of the “hurt my feelings” excuse? Not only does it defy belief—does anyone really think 12 members of the House of Representatives actually changed their minds on this bill because of a speech?—but it allows Obama to take the high road and look presidential. His campaign decried McCain’s “angry and hyperpartisan statement”—McCain had blamed the failure on Obama and fellow Democrats—but refused to point fingers back. “Now is the time for Democrats and Republicans to join together and act in a way that prevents an economic catastrophe.”
In the short term, at least, the advantage is Obama’s. First, it means the financial crisis is likely to stay in the news for a while longer—and he enjoys a huge margin over McCain when the issue is the economy. Second, McCain explicitly injected himself into the bailout negotiations, thereby lashing himself to the results. He was taking credit for this bill before it passed. Does that mean he should get blamed for its failure?
*UPDATE: Turns out Pelosi ad-libbed quite a bit of the speech, including this potentially divisive line: "... Democrats believe in a free market ... but in this case, in its
unbridled form as encouraged, supported by the Republicans — some in
the Republican Party, not all — it has created not jobs, not capital,
it has created chaos." See the video here.
-
sponsorship
The House of Representatives axed the proposed bailout legislation, 228 to 205, but the vote did not fall along party lines. Some delegations stuck together—every Arizonan voted against the measure, for example, while only four of New York's 29 representatives opposed it. Of the eight members whose re-election bids are classified by Congressional Quarterly as "Tossup," three voted for the bill while five voted against it.
We'll continue looking for patterns this afternoon. In the mean time, let me know if you think you've identified the voting pattern. An asterisk in the status means the seat is open and the member is not running for re-election.
Update, 5:30 p.m.: Slate's Timothy Noah points out that the 15 members of the Michigan delegation voted nine to six against the bill, even though the auto industry is uniquely vulnerable to a downturn—auto sales are already suffering from the credit crisis. This includes two of the four Democrats who represent the area around Detroit in the southeast corner of the state.
Reader Adam Tarr points out that the extremes of the political spectrum united against the bill as well. Of Voteview's ranking of members of Congress by ideology, eight of the 10 most liberal and all of the ten most conservative voted "no."
Update, 7:20 p.m.: Reader Bob Deaton tallied up the vote according to the status of the race, and noticed that representatives not running for re-election--most of whom are Republicans--were significantly more likely to support the measure. Of the 35 members about to leave Congress, 25 supported the bill. Among retiring Republicans, 75 percent voted for the measure. "There's something about giving up their seats that imbues our representatives with either integrity or reckless abandon, depending on your viewpoint," Deaton writes.
| Name |
Vote |
District |
CQ Status |
| Jo Bonner (R) |
Yes |
Alabama - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Terry Everett (R) |
Yes |
Alabama - 2 |
Lean Rep.* |
| Mike Rogers (R) |
Yes |
Alabama - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Robert Aderholt (R) |
No |
Alabama - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Bud Cramer (D) |
Yes |
Alabama - 5 |
Tossup* |
| Spencer Bachus (R) |
Yes |
Alabama - 6 |
Safe Rep. |
| Artur Davis (D) |
Yes |
Alabama - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| Don Young (R) |
No |
Alaska - AL |
Lean Dem. |
| Rick Renzi (R) |
No |
Arizona - 1 |
Lean Dem.* |
| Trent Franks (R) |
No |
Arizona - 2 |
Safe Rep. |
| John Shadegg (R) |
No |
Arizona - 3 |
Rep. Favored |
| Ed Pastor (D) |
No |
Arizona - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Harry Mitchell (D) |
No |
Arizona - 5 |
Lean Dem. |
| Jeff Flake (R) |
No |
Arizona - 6 |
Safe Rep. |
| Raul Grijalva (D) |
No |
Arizona - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| Gabrielle Giffords (D) |
No |
Arizona - 8 |
Lean Dem. |
| Marion Berry (D) |
Yes |
Arkansas - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Vic Snyder (D) |
Yes |
Arkansas - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| John Boozman (R) |
Yes |
Arkansas - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Mike Ross (D) |
Yes |
Arkansas - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Mike Thompson (D) |
No |
California - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Wally Herger (R) |
Yes |
California - 2 |
Safe Rep. |
| Daniel Lungren (R) |
Yes |
California - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| John Doolittle (R) |
No |
California - 4 |
Lean Rep.* |
| Doris Matsui (D) |
Yes |
California - 5 |
Safe Dem. |
| Lynn Woolsey (D) |
No |
California - 6 |
Safe Dem. |
| George Miller (D) |
Yes |
California - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| Nancy Pelosi (D) |
Yes |
California - 8 |
Safe Dem. |
| Barbara Lee (D) |
No |
California - 9 |
Safe Dem. |
| Ellen Tauscher (D) |
Yes |
California - 10 |
Safe Dem. |
| Jerry McNerney (D) |
Yes |
California - 11 |
Lean Dem. |
| Jackie Speier (D) |
Yes |
California - 12 |
Safe Dem. |
| Pete Stark (D) |
No |
California - 13 |
Safe Dem. |
| Anna Eshoo (D) |
Yes |
California - 14 |
Safe Dem. |
| Mike Honda (D) |
Yes |
California - 15 |
Safe Dem. |
| Zoe Lofgren (D) |
Yes |
California - 16 |
Safe Dem. |
| Sam Farr (D) |
Yes |
California - 17 |
Safe Dem. |
| Dennis Cardoza (D) |
Yes |
California - 18 |
Safe Dem. |
| George Radanovich (R) |
Yes |
California - 19 |
Safe Rep. |
| Jim Costa (D) |
Yes |
California - 20 |
Safe Dem. |
| Devin Nunes (R) |
No |
California - 21 |
Safe Rep. |
| Kevin McCarthy (R) |
No |
California - 22 |
Safe Rep. |
| Lois Capps (D) |
Yes |
California - 23 |
Safe Dem. |
| Elton Gallegly (R) |
No |
California - 24 |
Safe Rep. |
| Buck McKeon (R) |
Yes |
California - 25 |
Safe Rep. |
| David Dreier (R) |
Yes |
California - 26 |
Safe Rep. |
| Brad Sherman (D) |
No |
California - 27 |
Safe Dem. |
| Howard Berman (D) |
Yes |
California - 28 |
Safe Dem. |
| Adam Schiff (D) |
No |
California - 29 |
Safe Dem. |
| Henry Waxman (D) |
Yes |
California - 30 |
Safe Dem. |
| Xavier Becerra (D) |
No |
California - 31 |
Safe Dem. |
| Hilda Solis (D) |
No |
California - 32 |
Safe Dem. |
| Diane Watson (D) |
No |
California - 33 |
Safe Dem. |
| Lucille Roybal-Allard (D) |
No |
California - 34 |
Safe Dem. |
| Maxine Waters (D) |
Yes |
California - 35 |
Safe Dem. |
| Jane Harman (D) |
Yes |
California - 36 |
Safe Dem. |
| Laura Richardson (D) |
Yes |
California - 37 |
Safe Dem. |
| Grace Napolitano (D) |
No |
California - 38 |
Safe Dem. |
| Linda Sanchez (D) |
No |
California - 39 |
Safe Dem. |
| Edward Royce (R) |
No |
California - 40 |
Safe Rep. |
| Jerry Lewis (R) |
Yes |
California - 41 |
Safe Rep. |
| Gary Miller (R) |
Yes |
California - 42 |
Safe Rep. |
| Joe Baca (D) |
No |
California - 43 |
Safe Dem. |
| Ken Calvert (R) |
Yes |
California - 44 |
Safe Rep. |
| Mary Bono (R) |
Yes |
California - 45 |
Safe Rep. |
| Dana Rohrabacher (R) |
No |
California - 46 |
Safe Rep. |
| Loretta Sanchez (D) |
No |
California - 47 |
Safe Dem. |
| John Campbell (R) |
Yes |
California - 48 |
Safe Rep. |
| Darrell Issa (R) |
No |
California - 49 |
Safe Rep. |
| Brian Bilbray (R) |
No |
California - 50 |
Safe Rep. |
| Bob Filner (D) |
No |
California - 51 |
Safe Dem. |
| Duncan Hunter (R) |
No |
California - 52 |
Safe Rep.* |
| Susan Davis (D) |
Yes |
California - 53 |
Safe Dem. |
| Diana DeGette (D) |
Yes |
Colorado - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Mark Udall (D) |
No |
Colorado - 2 |
Safe Dem.* |
| John Salazar (D) |
No |
Colorado - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Marilyn Musgrave (R) |
No |
Colorado - 4 |
Lean Rep. |
| Doug Lamborn (R) |
No |
Colorado - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| Tom Tancredo (R) |
Yes |
Colorado - 6 |
Safe Rep.* |
| Ed Perlmutter (D) |
Yes |
Colorado - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| John Larson (D) |
Yes |
Connecticut - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Joe Courtney (D) |
No |
Connecticut - 2 |
Dem. Favored |
| Rosa DeLauro (D) |
Yes |
Connecticut - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Christopher Shays (R) |
Yes |
Connecticut - 4 |
Tossup |
| Christopher Murphy (D) |
Yes |
Connecticut - 5 |
Lean Dem. |
| Michael Castle (R) |
Yes |
Delaware - AL |
Safe Rep. |
| Jeff Miller (R) |
No |
Florida - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Allen Boyd (D) |
Yes |
Florida - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Corrine Brown (D) |
Yes |
Florida - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Ander Crenshaw (R) |
Yes |
Florida - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Ginny Brown-Waite (R) |
No |
Florida - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| Cliff Stearns (R) |
No |
Florida - 6 |
Safe Rep. |
| John Mica (R) |
No |
Florida - 7 |
Safe Rep. |
| Ric Keller (R) |
No |
Florida - 8 |
Lean Rep. |
| Gus Bilirakis (R) |
No |
Florida - 9 |
Safe Rep. |
| Bill Young (R) |
No |
Florida - 10 |
Safe Rep. |
| Kathy Castor (D) |
No |
Florida - 11 |
Safe Dem. |
| Adam Putnam (R) |
Yes |
Florida - 12 |
Safe Rep. |
| Vern Buchanan (R) |
No |
Florida - 13 |
Lean Rep. |
| Connie Mack (R) |
No |
Florida - 14 |
Safe Rep. |
| Dave Weldon (R) |
Yes |
Florida - 15 |
Rep. Favored* |
| Tim Mahoney (D) |
Yes |
Florida - 16 |
Tossup |
| Kendrick Meek (D) |
Yes |
Florida - 17 |
Safe Dem. |
| Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R) |
No |
Florida - 18 |
Safe Rep. |
| Robert Wexler (D) |
Yes |
Florida - 19 |
Safe Dem. |
| Debbie Schultz (D) |
Yes |
Florida - 20 |
Safe Dem. |
| Lincoln Diaz-Balart (R) |
No |
Florida - 21 |
Lean Rep. |
| Ron Klein (D) |
Yes |
Florida - 22 |
Dem. Favored |
| Alcee Hastings (D) |
Yes |
Florida - 23 |
Safe Dem. |
| Tom Feeney (R) |
No |
Florida - 24 |
Lean Rep. |
| Mario Diaz-Balart (R) |
No |
Florida - 25 |
Rep. Favored |
| Jack Kingston (R) |
No |
Georgia - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Sanford Bishop (D) |
Yes |
Georgia - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Lynn Westmoreland (R) |
No |
Georgia - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Hank Johnson (D) |
No |
Georgia - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| John Lewis (D) |
No |
Georgia - 5 |
Safe Dem. |
| Tom Price (R) |
No |
Georgia - 6 |
Safe Rep. |
| John Linder (R) |
No |
Georgia - 7 |
Safe Rep. |
| Jim Marshall (D) |
Yes |
Georgia - 8 |
Lean Dem. |
| Nathan Deal (R) |
No |
Georgia - 9 |
Safe Rep. |
| Paul Broun (R) |
No |
Georgia - 10 |
Safe Rep. |
| Phil Gingrey (R) |
No |
Georgia - 11 |
Safe Rep. |
| John Barrow (D) |
No |
Georgia - 12 |
Dem. Favored |
| David Scott (D) |
No |
Georgia - 13 |
Safe Dem. |
| Neil Abercrombie (D) |
No |
Hawaii - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Mazie Hirono (D) |
No |
Hawaii - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Bill Sali (R) |
No |
Idaho - 1 |
Rep. Favored |
| Michael Simpson (R) |
Yes |
Idaho - 2 |
Safe Rep. |
| Bobby Rush (D) |
No |
Illinois - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Jesse Jackson (D) |
No |
Illinois - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Daniel Lipinski (D) |
No |
Illinois - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Luis Gutierrez (D) |
Yes |
Illinois - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Rahm Emanuel (D) |
Yes |
Illinois - 5 |
Safe Dem. |
| Peter Roskam (R) |
No |
Illinois - 6 |
Rep. Favored |
| Danny Davis (D) |
Yes |
Illinois - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| Melissa Bean (D) |
Yes |
Illinois - 8 |
Dem. Favored |
| Jan Schakowsky (D) |
Yes |
Illinois - 9 |
Safe Dem. |
| Mark Kirk (R) |
Yes |
Illinois - 10 |
Lean Rep. |
| Jerry Weller (R) |
N/Vg |
Illinois - 11 |
Lean Dem.* |
| Jerry Costello (D) |
No |
Illinois - 12 |
Safe Dem. |
| Judith Biggert (R) |
No |
Illinois - 13 |
Rep. Favored |
| Bill Foster (D) |
Yes |
Illinois - 14 |
Lean Dem. |
| Tim Johnson (R) |
No |
Illinois - 15 |
Safe Rep. |
| Donald Manzullo (R) |
No |
Illinois - 16 |
Safe Rep. |
| Phil Hare (D) |
Yes |
Illinois - 17 |
Safe Dem. |
| Ray LaHood (R) |
Yes |
Illinois - 18 |
Rep. Favored* |
| John Shimkus (R) |
No |
Illinois - 19 |
Safe Rep. |
| Peter Visclosky (D) |
No |
Indiana - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Joe Donnelly (D) |
Yes |
Indiana - 2 |
Dem. Favored |
| Mark Souder (R) |
Yes |
Indiana - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Steve Buyer (R) |
No |
Indiana - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Dan Burton (R) |
No |
Indiana - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| Mike Pence (R) |
No |
Indiana - 6 |
Safe Rep. |
| André Carson (D) |
No |
Indiana - 7 |
Dem. Favored |
| Brad Ellsworth (D) |
Yes |
Indiana - 8 |
Dem. Favored |
| Baron Hill (D) |
No |
Indiana - 9 |
Lean Dem. |
| Bruce Braley (D) |
No |
Iowa - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| David Loebsack (D) |
Yes |
Iowa - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Leonard Boswell (D) |
Yes |
Iowa - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Tom Latham (R) |
No |
Iowa - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Steve King (R) |
No |
Iowa - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| Jerry Moran (R) |
No |
Kansas - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Nancy Boyda (D) |
No |
Kansas - 2 |
Tossup |
| Dennis Moore (D) |
Yes |
Kansas - 3 |
Dem. Favored |
| Todd Tiahrt (R) |
No |
Kansas - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Ed Whitfield (R) |
No |
Kentucky - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Ron Lewis (R) |
Yes |
Kentucky - 2 |
Rep. Favored* |
| John Yarmuth (D) |
No |
Kentucky - 3 |
Lean Dem. |
| Geoff Davis (R) |
No |
Kentucky - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Hal Rogers (R) |
Yes |
Kentucky - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| Ben Chandler (D) |
No |
Kentucky - 6 |
Safe Dem. |
| Steve Scalise (R) |
No |
Louisiana - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| William Jefferson (D) |
No |
Louisiana - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Charles Melancon (D) |
Yes |
Louisiana - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Jim McCrery (R) |
Yes |
Louisiana - 4 |
Lean Rep.* |
| Rodney Alexander (R) |
No |
Louisiana - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| Donald Cazayoux (D) |
No |
Louisiana - 6 |
Tossup |
| Charles Boustany (R) |
No |
Louisiana - 7 |
Rep. Favored |
| Thomas Allen (D) |
Yes |
Maine - 1 |
Dem. Favored |
| Michael Michaud (D) |
No |
Maine - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Wayne Gilchrest (R) |
Yes |
Maryland - 1 |
Rep. Favored* |
| Dutch Ruppersberger (D) |
Yes |
Maryland - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| John Sarbanes (D) |
Yes |
Maryland - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Donna Edwards (D) |
No |
Maryland - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Steny Hoyer (D) |
Yes |
Maryland - 5 |
Safe Dem. |
| Roscoe Bartlett (R) |
No |
Maryland - 6 |
Safe Rep. |
| Elijah Cummings (D) |
No |
Maryland - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| Chris Van Hollen (D) |
Yes |
Maryland - 8 |
Safe Dem. |
| John Olver (D) |
Yes |
Mass. - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Richard Neal (D) |
Yes |
Mass. - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| James McGovern (D) |
Yes |
Mass. - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Barney Frank (D) |
Yes |
Mass. - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Niki Tsongas (D) |
Yes |
Mass. - 5 |
Safe Dem. |
| John Tierney (D) |
No |
Mass. - 6 |
Safe Dem. |
| Edward Markey (D) |
Yes |
Mass. - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| Michael Capuano (D) |
Yes |
Mass. - 8 |
Safe Dem. |
| Stephen Lynch (D) |
No |
Mass. - 9 |
Safe Dem. |
| William Delahunt (D) |
No |
Mass. - 10 |
Safe Dem. |
| Bart Stupak (D) |
No |
Michigan - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Peter Hoekstra (R) |
No |
Michigan - 2 |
Safe Rep. |
| Vernon Ehlers (R) |
Yes |
Michigan - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Dave Camp (R) |
Yes |
Michigan - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Dale Kildee (D) |
Yes |
Michigan - 5 |
Safe Dem. |
| Fred Upton (R) |
Yes |
Michigan - 6 |
Safe Rep. |
| Timothy Walberg (R) |
No |
Michigan - 7 |
Lean Rep. |
| Mike Rogers (R) |
No |
Michigan - 8 |
Safe Rep. |
| Joe Knollenberg (R) |
No |
Michigan - 9 |
Lean Rep. |
| Candice Miller (R) |
No |
Michigan - 10 |
Safe Rep. |
| Thad McCotter (R) |
No |
Michigan - 11 |
Safe Rep. |
| Sander Levin (D) |
Yes |
Michigan - 12 |
Safe Dem. |
| Carolyn Kilpatrick (D) |
No |
Michigan - 13 |
Safe Dem. |
| John Conyers (D) |
No |
Michigan - 14 |
Safe Dem. |
| John Dingell (D) |
Yes |
Michigan - 15 |
Safe Dem. |
| Timothy Walz (D) |
No |
Minnesota - 1 |
Lean Dem. |
| John Kline (R) |
Yes |
Minnesota - 2 |
Rep. Favored |
| Jim Ramstad (R) |
No |
Minnesota - 3 |
Tossup* |
| Betty McCollum (D) |
Yes |
Minnesota - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Keith Ellison (D) |
Yes |
Minnesota - 5 |
Safe Dem. |
| Michele Bachmann (R) |
No |
Minnesota - 6 |
Rep. Favored |
| Collin Peterson (D) |
No |
Minnesota - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| James Oberstar (D) |
Yes |
Minnesota - 8 |
Safe Dem. |
| TRAVIS Childers (D) |
No |
Mississippi - 1 |
Lean Dem. |
| Bennie Thompson (D) |
No |
Mississippi - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Chip Pickering (R) |
Yes |
Mississippi - 3 |
Safe Rep.* |
| Gene Taylor (D) |
No |
Mississippi - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| William Clay (D) |
No |
Missouri - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Todd Akin (R) |
No |
Missouri - 2 |
Safe Rep. |
| Russ Carnahan (D) |
Yes |
Missouri - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Ike Skelton (D) |
Yes |
Missouri - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Emanuel Cleaver (D) |
No |
Missouri - 5 |
Safe Dem. |
| Sam Graves (R) |
No |
Missouri - 6 |
Lean Rep. |
| Roy Blunt (R) |
Yes |
Missouri - 7 |
Safe Rep. |
| Jo Ann Emerson (R) |
Yes |
Missouri - 8 |
Safe Rep. |
| Kenny Hulshof (R) |
No |
Missouri - 9 |
Lean Rep.* |
| Dennis Rehberg (R) |
No |
Montana - AL |
Safe Rep. |
| Jeff Fortenberry (R) |
No |
Nebraska - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Lee Terry (R) |
No |
Nebraska - 2 |
Rep. Favored |
| Adrian Smith (R) |
No |
Nebraska - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Shelley Berkley (D) |
No |
Nevada - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Dean Heller (R) |
No |
Nevada - 2 |
Lean Rep. |
| Jon Porter (R) |
Yes |
Nevada - 3 |
Tossup |
| Carol Shea-Porter (D) |
No |
N.H. - 1 |
Lean Dem. |
| Paul Hodes (D) |
No |
N.H. - 2 |
Dem. Favored |
| Robert Andrews (D) |
Yes |
New Jersey - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Frank LoBiondo (R) |
No |
New Jersey - 2 |
Safe Rep. |
| Jim Saxton (R) |
Yes |
New Jersey - 3 |
Tossup* |
| Christopher Smith (R) |
No |
New Jersey - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Scott Garrett (R) |
No |
New Jersey - 5 |
Rep. Favored |
| Frank Pallone (D) |
Yes |
New Jersey - 6 |
Safe Dem. |
| Mike Ferguson (R) |
Yes |
New Jersey - 7 |
Tossup* |
| Bill Pascrell (D) |
No |
New Jersey - 8 |
Safe Dem. |
| Steven Rothman (D) |
No |
New Jersey - 9 |
Safe Dem. |
| Donald Payne (D) |
No |
New Jersey - 10 |
Safe Dem. |
| Rodney Frelinghuysen (R) |
No |
New Jersey - 11 |
Safe Rep. |
| Rush Holt (D) |
Yes |
New Jersey - 12 |
Safe Dem. |
| Albio Sires (D) |
Yes |
New Jersey - 13 |
Safe Dem. |
| Heather Wilson (R) |
Yes |
New Mexico - 1 |
Tossup* |
| Stevan Pearce (R) |
No |
New Mexico - 2 |
Lean Rep.* |
| Tom Udall (D) |
No |
New Mexico - 3 |
Safe Dem.* |
| Timothy Bishop (D) |
Yes |
New York - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Steve Israel (D) |
Yes |
New York - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Peter King (R) |
Yes |
New York - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Carolyn McCarthy (D) |
Yes |
New York - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Gary Ackerman (D) |
Yes |
New York - 5 |
Safe Dem. |
| Gregory Meeks (D) |
Yes |
New York - 6 |
Safe Dem. |
| Joseph Crowley (D) |
Yes |
New York - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| Jerrold Nadler (D) |
Yes |
New York - 8 |
Safe Dem. |
| Anthony Weiner (D) |
Yes |
New York - 9 |
Safe Dem. |
| Edolphus Towns (D) |
Yes |
New York - 10 |
Safe Dem. |
| Yvette Clarke (D) |
Yes |
New York - 11 |
Safe Dem. |
| Nydia Velazquez (D) |
Yes |
New York - 12 |
Safe Dem. |
| Vito Fossella (R) |
Yes |
New York - 13 |
Dem. Favored |
| Carolyn Maloney (D) |
Yes |
New York - 14 |
Safe Dem. |
| Charles Rangel (D) |
Yes |
New York - 15 |
Safe Dem. |
| Jose Serrano (D) |
No |
New York - 16 |
Safe Dem. |
| Eliot Engel (D) |
Yes |
New York - 17 |
Safe Dem. |
| Nita Lowey (D) |
Yes |
New York - 18 |
Safe Dem. |
| John Hall (D) |
Yes |
New York - 19 |
Dem. Favored |
| Kirsten Gillibrand (D) |
No |
New York - 20 |
Lean Dem. |
| Michael McNulty (D) |
Yes |
New York - 21 |
Safe Dem.* |
| Maurice Hinchey (D) |
No |
New York - 22 |
Safe Dem. |
| John McHugh (R) |
Yes |
New York - 23 |
Safe Rep. |
| Michael Arcuri (D) |
Yes |
New York - 24 |
Dem. Favored |
| James Walsh (R) |
Yes |
New York - 25 |
Lean Dem.* |
| Thomas Reynolds (R) |
Yes |
New York - 26 |
Lean Rep.* |
| Brian Higgins (D) |
Yes |
New York - 27 |
Safe Dem. |
| Louise Slaughter (D) |
Yes |
New York - 28 |
Safe Dem. |
| Randy Kuhl (R) |
No |
New York - 29 |
Lean Rep. |
| G.K. Butterfield (D) |
No |
N.C. - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Bob Etheridge (D) |
Yes |
N.C. - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Walter Jones (R) |
No |
N.C. - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| David Price (D) |
Yes |
N.C. - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Virginia Foxx (R) |
No |
N.C. - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| Howard Coble (R) |
No |
N.C. - 6 |
Safe Rep. |
| Mike McIntyre (D) |
No |
N.C. - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| Robin Hayes (R) |
No |
N.C. - 8 |
Tossup |
| Sue Myrick (R) |
No |
N.C. - 9 |
Safe Rep. |
| Patrick McHenry (R) |
No |
N.C. - 10 |
Safe Rep. |
| Heath Shuler (D) |
No |
N.C. - 11 |
Safe Dem. |
| Melvin Watt (D) |
Yes |
N.C. - 12 |
Safe Dem. |
| Brad Miller (D) |
Yes |
N.C. - 13 |
Safe Dem. |
| Earl Pomeroy (D) |
Yes |
N.Dak. - AL |
Safe Dem. |
| Steve Chabot (R) |
No |
Ohio - 1 |
Lean Rep. |
| Jean Schmidt (R) |
No |
Ohio - 2 |
Lean Rep. |
| Michael Turner (R) |
No |
Ohio - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Jim Jordan (R) |
No |
Ohio - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Robert Latta (R) |
No |
Ohio - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| Charles Wilson (D) |
Yes |
Ohio - 6 |
Safe Dem. |
| David Hobson (R) |
Yes |
Ohio - 7 |
Rep. Favored* |
| John Boehner (R) |
Yes |
Ohio - 8 |
Safe Rep. |
| Marcy Kaptur (D) |
No |
Ohio - 9 |
Safe Dem. |
| Dennis Kucinich (D) |
No |
Ohio - 10 |
Safe Dem. |
| Pat Tiberi (R) |
No |
Ohio - 12 |
Safe Rep. |
| Betty Sutton (D) |
No |
Ohio - 13 |
Safe Dem. |
| Steven LaTourette (R) |
No |
Ohio - 14 |
Rep. Favored |
| Deborah Pryce (R) |
Yes |
Ohio - 15 |
Tossup* |
| Ralph Regula (R) |
Yes |
Ohio - 16 |
Tossup* |
| Tim Ryan (D) |
Yes |
Ohio - 17 |
Safe Dem. |
| Zachary Space (D) |
Yes |
Ohio - 18 |
Dem. Favored |
| John Sullivan (R) |
No |
Oklahoma - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Dan Boren (D) |
Yes |
Oklahoma - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Frank Lucas (R) |
No |
Oklahoma - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Tom Cole (R) |
Yes |
Oklahoma - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Mary Fallin (R) |
No |
Oklahoma - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| David Wu (D) |
No |
Oregon - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Greg Walden (R) |
Yes |
Oregon - 2 |
Safe Rep. |
| Earl Blumenauer (D) |
No |
Oregon - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Peter DeFazio (D) |
No |
Oregon - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Darlene Hooley (D) |
Yes |
Oregon - 5 |
Lean Dem.* |
| Robert Brady (D) |
Yes |
Penn. - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Chaka Fattah (D) |
Yes |
Penn. - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Philip English (R) |
No |
Penn. - 3 |
Lean Rep. |
| Jason Altmire (D) |
No |
Penn. - 4 |
Lean Dem. |
| John Peterson (R) |
Yes |
Penn. - 5 |
Safe Rep.* |
| Jim Gerlach (R) |
No |
Penn. - 6 |
Rep. Favored |
| Joe Sestak (D) |
Yes |
Penn. - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| Patrick Murphy (D) |
Yes |
Penn. - 8 |
Dem. Favored |
| Bill Shuster (R) |
No |
Penn. - 9 |
Safe Rep. |
| Christopher Carney (D) |
No |
Penn. - 10 |
Lean Dem. |
| Paul Kanjorski (D) |
Yes |
Penn. - 11 |
Lean Dem. |
| John Murtha (D) |
Yes |
Penn. - 12 |
Safe Dem. |
| Allyson Schwartz (D) |
Yes |
Penn. - 13 |
Safe Dem. |
| Michael Doyle (D) |
Yes |
Penn. - 14 |
Safe Dem. |
| Charles Dent (R) |
No |
Penn. - 15 |
Rep. Favored |
| Joe Pitts (R) |
No |
Penn. - 16 |
Safe Rep. |
| Tim Holden (D) |
No |
Penn. - 17 |
Safe Dem. |
| Tim Murphy (R) |
No |
Penn. - 18 |
Rep. Favored |
| Todd Platts (R) |
No |
Penn. - 19 |
Safe Rep. |
| Patrick Kennedy (D) |
Yes |
Rhode Island - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| James Langevin (D) |
Yes |
Rhode Island - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Henry Brown (R) |
Yes |
S.C. - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Joe Wilson (R) |
Yes |
S.C. - 2 |
Safe Rep. |
| J. Gresham Barrett (R) |
No |
S.C. - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Bob Inglis (R) |
Yes |
S.C. - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| John Spratt (D) |
Yes |
S.C. - 5 |
Safe Dem. |
| James Clyburn (D) |
Yes |
S.C. - 6 |
Safe Dem. |
| Stephanie Sandlin (D) |
No |
S.Dak. - AL |
Safe Dem. |
| David Davis (R) |
No |
Tennessee - 1 |
Safe Rep.* |
| John 'Jimmy' Duncan (R) |
No |
Tennessee - 2 |
Safe Rep. |
| Zachary Wamp (R) |
No |
Tennessee - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Lincoln Davis (D) |
No |
Tennessee - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Jim Cooper (D) |
Yes |
Tennessee - 5 |
Safe Dem. |
| Bart Gordon (D) |
Yes |
Tennessee - 6 |
Safe Dem. |
| Marsha Blackburn (R) |
No |
Tennessee - 7 |
Safe Rep. |
| John Tanner (D) |
Yes |
Tennessee - 8 |
Safe Dem. |
| Steve Cohen (D) |
Yes |
Tennessee - 9 |
Safe Dem. |
| Louie Gohmert (R) |
No |
Texas - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Ted Poe (R) |
No |
Texas - 2 |
Safe Rep. |
| Sam Johnson (R) |
No |
Texas - 3 |
Safe Rep. |
| Ralph Hall (R) |
No |
Texas - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Jeb Hensarling (R) |
No |
Texas - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| Joe Barton (R) |
No |
Texas - 6 |
Safe Rep. |
| John Culberson (R) |
No |
Texas - 7 |
Rep. Favored |
| Kevin Brady (R) |
Yes |
Texas - 8 |
Safe Rep. |
| Al Green (D) |
No |
Texas - 9 |
Safe Dem. |
| Michael McCaul (R) |
No |
Texas - 10 |
Rep. Favored |
| Michael Conaway (R) |
No |
Texas - 11 |
Safe Rep. |
| Kay Granger (R) |
Yes |
Texas - 12 |
Safe Rep. |
| Mac Thornberry (R) |
No |
Texas - 13 |
Safe Rep. |
| Ron Paul (R) |
No |
Texas - 14 |
Safe Rep. |
| Ruben Hinojosa (D) |
Yes |
Texas - 15 |
Safe Dem. |
| Silvestre Reyes (D) |
Yes |
Texas - 16 |
Safe Dem. |
| Chet Edwards (D) |
Yes |
Texas - 17 |
Safe Dem. |
| Sheila Jackson-Lee (D) |
No |
Texas - 18 |
Safe Dem. |
| Randy Neugebauer (R) |
No |
Texas - 19 |
Safe Rep. |
| Charles Gonzalez (D) |
Yes |
Texas - 20 |
Safe Dem. |
| Lamar Smith (R) |
Yes |
Texas - 21 |
Safe Rep. |
| Nicholas Lampson (D) |
No |
Texas - 22 |
Tossup |
| Ciro Rodriguez (D) |
No |
Texas - 23 |
Lean Dem. |
| Kenny Marchant (R) |
No |
Texas - 24 |
Safe Rep. |
| Lloyd Doggett (D) |
No |
Texas - 25 |
Safe Dem. |
| Michael Burgess (R) |
No |
Texas - 26 |
Safe Rep. |
| Solomon Ortiz (D) |
No |
Texas - 27 |
Safe Dem. |
| Henry Cuellar (D) |
No |
Texas - 28 |
Safe Dem. |
| Gene Green (D) |
No |
Texas - 29 |
Safe Dem. |
| Eddie Johnson (D) |
Yes |
Texas - 30 |
Safe Dem. |
| John Carter (R) |
No |
Texas - 31 |
Safe Rep. |
| Pete Sessions (R) |
Yes |
Texas - 32 |
Safe Rep. |
| Rob Bishop (R) |
No |
Utah - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Jim Matheson (D) |
No |
Utah - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Chris Cannon (R) |
Yes |
Utah - 3 |
Safe Rep.* |
| Peter Welch (D) |
No |
Vermont - AL |
Safe Dem. |
| Robert Wittman (R) |
No |
Virginia - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Thelma Drake (R) |
No |
Virginia - 2 |
Rep. Favored |
| Robert Scott (D) |
No |
Virginia - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Randy Forbes (R) |
No |
Virginia - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Virgil Goode (R) |
No |
Virginia - 5 |
Rep. Favored |
| Bob Goodlatte (R) |
No |
Virginia - 6 |
Safe Rep. |
| Eric Cantor (R) |
Yes |
Virginia - 7 |
Safe Rep. |
| James Moran (D) |
Yes |
Virginia - 8 |
Safe Dem. |
| Rick Boucher (D) |
Yes |
Virginia - 9 |
Safe Dem. |
| Frank Wolf (R) |
Yes |
Virginia - 10 |
Rep. Favored |
| Tom Davis (R) |
Yes |
Virginia - 11 |
Lean Dem.* |
| Jay Inslee (D) |
No |
Washington - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Rick Larsen (D) |
Yes |
Washington - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Brian Baird (D) |
Yes |
Washington - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Doc Hastings (R) |
No |
Washington - 4 |
Safe Rep. |
| Cathy Rodgers (R) |
No |
Washington - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| Norman Dicks (D) |
Yes |
Washington - 6 |
Safe Dem. |
| Jim McDermott (D) |
Yes |
Washington - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| David Reichert (R) |
No |
Washington - 8 |
Tossup |
| Adam Smith (D) |
Yes |
Washington - 9 |
Safe Dem. |
| Alan Mollohan (D) |
Yes |
W.Va. - 1 |
Safe Dem. |
| Shelley Capito (R) |
No |
W.Va. - 2 |
Lean Rep. |
| Nick Rahall (D) |
Yes |
W.Va. - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Paul Ryan (R) |
Yes |
Wisconsin - 1 |
Safe Rep. |
| Tammy Baldwin (D) |
Yes |
Wisconsin - 2 |
Safe Dem. |
| Ron Kind (D) |
Yes |
Wisconsin - 3 |
Safe Dem. |
| Gwen Moore (D) |
Yes |
Wisconsin - 4 |
Safe Dem. |
| Jim Sensenbrenner (R) |
No |
Wisconsin - 5 |
Safe Rep. |
| Thomas Petri (R) |
No |
Wisconsin - 6 |
Safe Rep. |
| David Obey (D) |
Yes |
Wisconsin - 7 |
Safe Dem. |
| Steve Kagen (D) |
No |
Wisconsin - 8 |
Lean Dem. |
| Barbara Cubin (R) |
Yes |
Wyoming - AL |
Lean Rep.* |
Correction, Sept. 30: This list originally reversed the votes of Chet Edwards and Donna Edwards. Chet Edwards (D-Texas) supported the bill, while Donna Edwards (D-Maryland) did not.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: Citizens for Open and Responsive Government
Purpose: To combat what they see as unfair attacks on candidates or unacceptable campaign activity. The group has opposed state-level Republican candidates in the past, but in this presidential election they support McCain.
Director: Carlton Saffa
Funding: Small individual donations.
Cost of the Ad: Prefer not to release.
Where It Ran: Colorado, Sept. 22-26
Related Groups: None
Claims: John McCain cannot use a keyboard or computer because of war injuries sustained in Vietnam. This is in response to the Obama campaign’s "Still" ad, which mocks McCain’s inability to use a computer or send an e-mail. The spot also quotes Joe Biden calling the initial Obama ad “terrible.”
Accuracy: The claim that McCain cannot use a computer because of his war injuries isn’t entirely true. In an interview with the New York Times, McCain said he is learning how to use a computer, which suggests he can use one, at least to a limited extent. (Plus, many people physically worse-off than McCain manage to use computers.) Biden did call the ad “terrible,” but later issued a follow-up statement saying that he had been reacting to press accounts without actually seeing the ad.
Background: Saffa says CORG decided to film the ad because it felt the issue was being ignored by the mainstream media. Lt. Col. Mike Fairhead, the veteran in the video, was also injured in the Vietnam War.
Swift Boat Rating: 
Using a veteran who also sustained war injuries is a bit melodramatic. Does he even know McCain? Obama’s ad did mock John McCain’s inability to use a computer, but it didn’t mock his disabilities. The ad was using his computer illiteracy, along with other examples, to argue that McCain is out of touch with Americans.
-
sponsorship
Whoever wins the election, one thing is for sure: The next president of the United States will be extremely boring.
At least, that’s the impression voters just tuning in will get based on tonight’s debate.
The evening was heavy on substance, from the Wall Street bailout to Iraq to Russia and Georgia. Which is good, in theory. But there wasn’t a single memorable line. McCain did a better job of boiling his message down to short sentences—“That isn’t just naive, it’s dangerous,” he said of Obama’s desire to hold talks with unfriendly nations. At another point, McCain held up a pen and promised to veto every spending bill that crossed his desk. But none of his lines zinged like his now-famous “tied up at the time” moment during the primaries. Obama, meanwhile, sounded discursive and academic even about visceral issues like war with Iran: “What Senator McCain refers to is a measure in the Senate that would try to broaden the mandate inside Iraq” to justify action against Iran, he said. Obama did have a strong moment where he repeated the phrase, “You were wrong,” referring to McCain’s opinions on WMD and being welcomed as liberators in Iraq. But for the most part, it was like a race to the bottom of my memory.
Jim Lehrer tried valiantly to get the candidates to address each other. Eventually, Obama managed to turn to McCain and address him in the second person, but only after some prodding. “Say it directly to him,” Lehrer instructed Obama at one point. McCain never mustered the will.
The last few weeks are partly to blame. People have become so used to potshots and posturing—“100 years,” “lipstick,” sex education for kindergartners—that sober discussion of earmarks comes off as, well, dull. It was also the subject matter. Lehrer deliberately avoided pulling a Gibson/Stephanopoulos and instead stuck to policy. Sure, it occasionally got personal. McCain said Obama doesn’t know the difference between tactics and strategy; Obama accused McCain of trying to "pretend like the war started in 2007." But compared with recent weeks, it was all pretty tame.
That said, boredom is probably a good thing. The media fixate on debate details that reflect poorly on the candidates. (George W. Bush garbling a sentence, George H.W. Bush checking his watch, Al Gore sighing a lot.) So, the lack of “moments” means the candidates were able to stick to their message, not screw up any lines, and generally stay relaxed. Plus, there are greater sins than wonkiness in a debate. Tonight’s topics demanded some drilling down. McCain’s discussion of Georgian sovereignty, Obama’s distinction between “preconditions” and “preparation,” the sacrifices the economic bailout will force both candidates to make—all of this matters. I’m just glad they provide a transcript.
-
sponsorship
I don’t know what it says about this election that it has spawned so many debate drinking games, but it seems worth a roundup. Here are some of the best rules and instructions you’ll find for tonight’s Mississippi fisticuffs:
“One drink:
- If both candidates show up”
--Rhog
“TAKE A SIP WHENEVER:
John McCain refers to himself as a 'maverick.'
Barack Obama rolls his eyes when John McCain refers to himself as a 'maverick.' "
--Radar
“When McCain makes his first reference to being a prisoner of war:
Everybody get in a box and take a Vicodin.
At McCain’s second reference to being a POW:
Two shots, punch the person next to you in the biceps, demand a confession.
Third POW reference:
Five and a half shots.
--Wonkette
“The entire time McCain speaks, players will be able to ‘invade’ other players by putting their finger in another person’s cup without them noticing. If they are able to do so, the invaded person must drink from their cup as well as their conqueror’s cup until McCain is done speaking.”
--In Our Ear … Out the Other
“Every time Obama pauses before the predicate of a sentence, go watch Star Trek: The Original Series to see how a pro does it.”
--Indecision 2008
“DO NOT take a drink every time McCain attempts to appropriate parts of Obama’s campaign message.
DO NOT take a drink every time McCain chuckles and smiles.
And ABSOLUTELY DO NOT take a drink every time McCain mentions 9/11."
--Daily Kos
“McCain claims the 'fundamentals of our economy are strong'–finish your drink and write a bad check to your landlord.
The cameras pan out to Cindy McCain–swallow all the pills you can find and finish your drink.
Either candidate refers to previous drug use–spark a joint and pass.
McCain uses self-deprecating humor to comment on his age–mix whiskey with Metamucil and sip while asking the person next to you when you’re going to have grandchildren.
McCain says 'my friends' more than three times–open the front door and scream, 'I am not your goddamn friend, McCain,' pound your beer and throw the empty in the street.”
--Fat Kid Special
“- Do a Jägerbomb every time 'the surge' is mentioned
- Shot of vodka every time Russia or Georgia are mentioned
- Shot of bourbon every time ethanol is mentioned
- Shot of tequila every time immigration or Mexico are mentioned
- Shot of rum every time hurricanes are mentioned
- Shot of scotch if the disembodied ghost of Ulysses S. Grant makes an appearance
- Shot of your own wretched tears when the debate ends and you realize that one of these two clowns is going to be the next president."
--Rhog
“Regardless of what either candidate says, at the end of the debate, drink something that must be lit on fire first, then hit yourself in the face with a shovel.”
--Josh Nelson, Huffington Post
And, of course, drink every time Jim Lehrer's pupils dilate to the size of quarters.
-
sponsorship
The first question of tonight’s debate should be for John McCain, and it should be this: What were you thinking?
Let’s review: It was precisely 2 p.m. on Wednesday when McCain issued a statement saying he was suspending his campaign, and asking to delay tonight’s debate, so he could “return to Washington” to work with both parties on the Wall Street bailout plan. He was clear about the goal: “We must meet until this crisis is resolved,” he said. Then, at 11:30 a.m. today, he declared the suspension lifted. Crisis resolved? Not exactly. But McCain said he was “optimistic that there has been significant progress toward a bipartisan agreement.” He will be in Mississippi tonight to debate Barack Obama.
From crisis to optimism in less than 48 hours: That’s leadership! Or maybe not. There’s a better word to describe McCain’s behavior between his two announcements.
First, it should be noted that he didn’t really suspend his campaign. His campaign asked TV networks to stop running ads, but some still aired. Sarah Palin still attended public events. Surrogates and campaign aides continued to boost McCain and ding Obama. And McCain himself still held an interview with Katie Couric (though he canceled on David Letterman, much to Dave’s chagrin). Then there’s the length of time it took him to get to the White House after his announcement—more than 24 hours. Then there’s what he did when he got there—upset a bipartisan agreement that appeared to be moving along well, remain mostly silent during the key meeting with Obama and President Bush, blame Democrats for the mess-up, and accuse Obama of “posturing.” His final act was to skip off to Mississippi for the debate.
Editorial boards and most other observers declared the decision a mess, especially after the Thursday meeting in which bipartisan negotiations collapsed. Even Mike Huckabee, a McCain booster, called McCain’s gambit a “huge mistake.” (That said, Newt Gingrich approved, calling McCain’s decision “the greatest single act of responsibility ever taken by a presidential candidate.”)
But despite all the talk about his campaign suspension, McCain’s bigger mistake may have been lifting it and agreeing to debate Obama. Initially, McCain promised to boycott the debate barring “consensus on legislation” to address the bailout. Needless to say, that hasn’t happened. What has happened is that a general agreement on the broad strokes of the bailout package has fallen apart; House Republicans who had earlier seemed amenable to the bailout have revolted, possibly to make it look as if McCain swooped in and saved the day; and talks have “imploded” thanks largely to the arrival of both presidential candidates on Capitol Hill.
McCain’s assessment of all this in a statement this morning? “Significant progress.”
Take it away, Jim Lehrer.
-
sponsorship
See all Swift Boat Watch entries here.
Who They Are: The American Issues Project
Purpose: Promoting conservative values
Founder: Ed Martin, former chief of staff to Missouri Gov. Matt Blunt
Funding: The organization recently named Dallas billionaire Harold Simmons as its sole funder, to the tune of $2.87 million. IRS reports show that Simmons gave $3 million to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth in 2004.
Cost: $2.87 million
-
sponsorship
Bill Clinton praised a presidential candidate yesterday. “The American people, for good and sufficient reasons, admire him,” Clinton said on The View. “He’s given something in life the rest of us can’t match.” The problem: He was talking about John McCain.
[UPDATE, Sept. 25: Clinton can't help himself: He praised McCain again today, telling Good Morning America that he understands why McCain wants to delay Friday's debate. ""We know he didn't do it because he's afraid, because Sen. McCain wanted more debates," Clinton said. "I presume he did
that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I remember he asked for
more debates to go all around the country and so I don't think we ought
to overly parse that."]
At the Democratic National Convention in August, Clinton promised that he and Hillary would do everything possible to get Barack Obama elected. Since then, he’s been a nonentity on the campaign trail. He just announced plans to visit swing states with Obama next week, but only “after the Jewish holidays.” (Presumably he’ll wait for Yom Kippur, which is Oct. 9, not Sukkot, which ends Oct. 22.) But his presence won’t necessarily be a boon; even when he’s praising Obama, it sounds tepid.
Bill Clinton is one of the best orators and political talents of his generation. So why is he such a lousy surrogate? Some theories:
It’s always about him. Granted, Clinton’s recent TV appearances were geared to promote the Clinton Global Initiative. So he’s excused for talking about himself there. But even questions that aren’t about him become about him. When a View hostess asked him who he thinks is going to win, he answered the question—“I believe Obama will win”—and then segued into praise for McCain. “If it hadn’t been for John McCain, I’m not sure I could have normalized relations with Vietnam,” he said. When David Letterman asked him what he thinks about Obama picking Biden over Hillary, he described how “Joe Biden was a great supporter of mine when I was president in stopping the genocide in Bosnia, Kosovo, restoring democracy in Haiti, and a lot of things we did together.”
He likes everyone. On Tuesday, Clinton had kind words for the Palin family. “I come from Arkansas. I get why she’s hot out there, why she's doing well,” he told reporters. (He added that voters would think, “I'm glad she loves her daughter and she's not ashamed of her. … I like that little Down syndrome kid.”) On Larry King Live, he called Palin “gutsy, spirited, and real.” As for Obama vs. McCain, “I genuinely like both of them. … We make a terrible mistake believing we have to find something wrong with the people we won’t vote for.” And calling Obama a “good candidate” and a “smart man” sounds pretty weak.
He’s too analytical. Clinton likes to play pundit, explaining why he thinks Obama will win instead of why people should vote for him. On the Late Show, he predicted the election would “break Obama’s way.” Not because of Obama’s message of hope and change and the American dream, but because of election fundamentals. As he said on The View: “Obama will win for the following reasons: Two-thirds of American people are having trouble paying their bills. … America is growing more diverse,” racially and demographically. And “registration is up for Democrats, flat for Republicans in 20 of the most important states.” Inspiring!
He thinks Hillary deserved to win. Clinton doesn’t have to keep arguing that Hillary won the popular vote, as he did on The View. (She did come close.) He also stopped short of telling Hillary supporters who dislike Obama that they’re wrong. “You can’t tell someone else that ground on which they make their voting decision is irrational,” he said. “We can’t tell anybody they don’t know what they’re doing because they vote for candidate X instead of Y.” That’s actually a good description of what campaigning is.
He’s determined to be bipartisan. Since 2000, Clinton has tried to live down his reputation as a polarizing force. The Clinton Foundation combats HIV/AIDS and makes a point of reaching out to Republicans. Laura Bush was the keynote speaker at the foundation’s 2006 conference. After a massive tsunami hit Indonesia in 2005, Clinton teamed up with President George H.W. Bush to ask for donations. Sure, he didn’t seem to mind the rough-and-tumble when campaigning for his wife in the primaries, but campaigning for Obama, with all the mud-lobbing going on right now, could complicate his efforts to reburnish his reputation as an elder statesman.
This doesn’t mean that Clinton won’t campaign for Obama or that he won’t be effective. All he needs, to paraphrase a popular political slogan, is a candidate he can believe in.
UPDATE: Clinton can't help himself: He praised McCain again Thursday, telling
Good Morning America that he understands why McCain's wants to delay
Friday's debate. ""We know he didn't do it because he's afraid, because Sen.
McCain wanted more debates," Clinton
said. "I presume he did that in good faith since I know he wanted -- I
remember he asked for more debates to go all around the country and so I don't
think we ought to overly parse that."
-
sponsorship
Click here for the first installment of Swift Boat Watch.
Who They Are: Brave New PAC
Purpose: Brave New Films, which produces the PAC’s ads, is a 501(c)4 nonprofit. In the 2008 presidential election, it opposes John McCain.
President: Robert Greenwald
Funding: Democracy for America paid for half of the ad.
Cost of the Ad: $50,000, according to the group and an FEC report (PDF) listing expenditures by both Brave New PAC and Democracy for America.
Where It Ran: Nationally on MSNBC and CNN, for three days.
Related Groups: Brave New Films, Democracy for America
Claims: A former POW and colleague of McCain’s states that being a prisoner of war is “not a good prerequisite for a president.” He then talks about McCain’s “volatile” temper. McCain “is not somebody I’d want to see with his finger near the red button,” he says.
Accuracy: The ad is mostly opinion, so there isn’t a whole lot of fact-checking to be done. Butler wrote an opinion piece for the military back in March in which he explains his relationship with McCain at the Naval Academy and at the Hanoi Hilton and why he won’t be voting for him come November. But McCain’s temper has made more than a few appearances in the media during his campaigns. (See here, here, and here.)
Background: This ad began as a four-minute video but was trimmed down to a palatable 30-second spot for TV. The group mostly relies on viral videos, rather than big TV buys, to get publicity .
Swift Boat Rating: 
It’s reminiscent of the Swift Boat ad four years ago that challenged candidate John Kerry’s war record. The statements made in the anti-Kerry ad, however, were found to be false or exaggerated. It’s hard to fact-check one guy’s opinion.
-
sponsorship
Every campaign season, independent groups on both sides drop huge sums on attack ads targeting the presidential candidates. Sometimes, people even notice. (See: Boat Veterans for Truth, Swift.) But, for the most part, they sail under the radar.
So in case you’re not living in a swing neighborhood of a swing district of a swing state, where these ads air constantly, Trailhead will be tracking the latest ads from these 527s—so named for their tax-code status—and other independent groups, such as 501(c)4s, that are diving into the fray. We’ll tell you who’s behind them, what they want, and just how sneaky their claims are. Depending on this last part, we assign between one and four Swift Boats.
Who: BornAliveTruth
Founder: Jill Stanek, former nurse and anti-abortion activist.
Funding: Raymond Ruddy, pro-life philanthropist from Massachusetts, donated $350,000 for the ad after Stanek contacted him.
Cost of the Ad: $350,000
Where it ran: Ohio and New Mexico
Claims: Barack Obama voted “no” on the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act in Illinois, which would have provided legal protection to infants born alive during abortions and unlikely to survive.
Accuracy: Obama opposed the bill in 2001 and 2002 as a backdoor attack on abortion. He said, though, that he would vote for it if it included a “neutrality clause” that would prevent it from affecting Roe v. Wade. But when a version with a neutrality clause came to the floor in 2003, Obama again voted “no.” The ad is correct about Obama’s voting record, but the group takes some liberties with the reasoning behind his votes. (Check out Factcheck.org’s analysis here.)
Background: Gianna Jessen, an abortion survivor, narrates the short spot. Her story is corroborated with her birth certificate, which says she was born during an unsuccessful third-trimester saline abortion. Jill Stanek, the group’s founder, worked as a registered nurse at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Ill. After discovering that the hospital performed “partial birth abortions,” she began publicly advertising the fact. Stanek and Jessen both testified before Congress in 2000 and lobbied heavily to get the 2002 federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act passed.
The group originally listed its purpose on IRS forms “informing the public of Barack Obama's support of infanticide,” but after talking to lawyers this summer, Stanek says, they changed their description to "inform the public about issues related to laws concerning infants who are born alive after unsuccessful abortions." Stanek says the group’s core goal is still the same. (See the group’s original filing here and the amended filing here.)
Swift Boat Rating:
While in the Illinois State Senate, Obama did vote “no” four times to the Born Alive Infant Protection Act, even when the bill contained the neutrality clause. The ad’s claims are accurate even if the logic is a bit off.
-
sponsorship
Prominent Hillary Clinton supporter Lynn Forester de Rothschild has decided to endorse John McCain. Why? Because Barack Obama is a snob.
“This is a hard decision for me personally because frankly I don’t like him,” she told CNN this summer. “I feel like he is an elitist.”
This, coming from the CEO of EL Rothschild LLC and wife of British financier and thoroughbred-horse-racing enthusiast Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild—son of financier and luxury automobile enthusiast Anthony Gustav de Rothschild, son of financier and thoroughbred-race-horse breeder Leopold de Rothschild, son of British politician Lionel Nathan de Rothschild, son of London financier Nathan Mayer Rothschild, son of Mayer Amschel Rothschild, son of money changer and goldsmith Moses Amschel Bauer.
Of course, being elite is not elitism. As de Rothschild herself wrote in that working man's rag, the Wall Street Journal, "Elitism is a state of mind, a view of the world that cannot be measured simply by one's net worth, position or number of houses." But as my colleague Mickey Kaus put it, "You lost me at 'de.' "
-
sponsorship
It’s almost as if the McCain campaign circulated a memo on how not to respond to the Wall Street collapse, but everyone misinterpreted it as what they should do.
First, McCain asserted that the “fundamentals of our economy are strong” before describing them as “at great risk.” Then his top economic adviser suggested—the campaign says jokingly—that McCain helped invent the BlackBerry. Now Carly Fiorina, another top adviser, said in separate instances that neither Sarah Palin nor John McCain could run a major corporation.
Now, before you pounce on Fiorina, consider the full context:
MITCHELL: You were asked whether Sarah Palin has the experience to run a major company ... and you said, "No, I don't, but you know what? That's not what she's running for."
FIORINA: “Well, I don't think John McCain could run a major corporation. I don't think Barack Obama could run a major corporation. I don't think Joe Biden could run a major corporation. But on the other hand, running a major corporation is not the same as being President or Vice President of the United States. It is a fallacy to suggest that the country is like a company. So, of course, to run a business you have to have a lifetime of experience in business. But that's not what John McCain, Barack Obama, Sarah Palin or Joe Biden are doing.”
Her answer is completely natural and nondamning if you look at the entire paragraph. (Although you could take issue with the "fallacy" line, since George W. Bush did suggest that business experience matters.) The “gaffe”—that McCain couldn’t run a major corporation—is manufactured by the setup.
It’s not unlike Wesley Clark's comment in June about how John McCain's getting shot down doesn't prepare him for the presidency. He, too, was responding in the context of the question. Bob Schieffer pointed out that Barack Obama had not “ridden in a fighter plane and gotten shot down,” to which Clark replied: “Well, I don't think riding in a fighter plane and getting shot down is a qualification to be president.”
Of course, the “context” defense is useless now. If John McCain can excerpt Katie Couric’s observation that the primary campaign was sexist and make it sound like she was talking about Obama … if Obama can rip McCain’s “100 years” quote to make it sound like he’s for a century-long occupation of Iraq … if McCain can juxtapose Sarah Palin’s “lipstick” line from the RNC with Obama’s “lipstick” quote to make it sound like he’s talking about her … then Carly Fiorina, whatever her intention, is out of luck.
-
sponsorship
Perhaps taking a cue from Sarah Palin’s barbs against the elite Washington media, Ralph Nader has released a new Web ad chiding the same fickle bunch.
But it’s not negative coverage he’s complaining about. It’s the lack of any coverage whatsoever.
“All these reporters I’ve known, and the commentators and editors, they just froze,” he tells his pet parrot. “They froze, Cardozo. National television has just blacked out the Nader-Gonzales campaign. I don’t know what I have to do.” His best bet, he decides, is to dress up like a panda and go to the zoo.
Running against the media is a failsafe way to gin up attention. Voters devour it, even as they depend on the media to broadcast the candidate’s media-bashing. Even the media kind of likes it, since they get to discuss their favorite subject. At least Nader does it with a sense of humor, compared with Palin’s suggestion that media elites dislike her because she’s an outsider and “consider a candidate unqualified for that reason alone.”
Nader has only registered on the election radar a couple of times this cycle, first with the usual will-he-or-won't-he, then with his vindication on the question of game-fixing in the 2002 NBA playoffs. Both times, the spotlight faded. (Between the conventions, the hurricanes, and the economic meltdown, you can sort of see why.)
“To be, or not to be … a panda,” Nader wonders. Hell, I'd cover that.
-
sponsorship
One of the many reasons I am mourning David Foster Wallace’s death (along with those cited here and here and here) is that we never found out what he thought of John McCain’s 2008 campaign. His 2000 piece on John McCain is my favorite discussion of authenticity in politics. The driving question: When McCain tells you he seeks only to inspire Americans to serve a cause greater than their own self-interest—or, to update for 2008, when he says he’d rather “lose an election than lose a war”—is he speaking the truth or mere hooey? In other words, is John McCain “for real”?
Wallace comes down on all sides all at once. On the one hand, McCain’s pledges of honesty and reform "indicate that some very shrewd, clever marketers are trying to market this candidate's rejection of shrewd, clever marketing." His brand of anti-politics came along at a convenient time, Wallace notes, just as cynicism in American politics was reaching its (apparent) zenith.
But McCain has a trump card: his personal story, which Wallace calls “riveting and unspinnable and true.” That story gives even a cynic like Wallace pause when he listens to McCain’s rhetoric about integrity. We’ve all heard the story of McCain’s capture in Vietnam told and retold. But Wallace tells it as if for the first time. He describes McCain’s refusal of release "with all his basic primal human self-interest howling at him," and then asks:
“Would you have refused the offer? Could you have? You can’t know for sure. None of us can. … But, see we do know how this man reacted. That he chose to spend four more year there, mostly in a dark box, alone, tapping messages on the walls to the others, rather than violate a Code. Maybe he was nuts. But the point is that with McCain it feels like we know, for a proven fact, that he is capable of devotion to something other, more, than his own self-interest.”
Wallace never really decides whether McCain is categorically, irrefutably “for real.” (He settles on the weak conclusion that the answer “depends less on what is in his heart than on what might be in yours.”) But you can tell he really, really hopes he is.
Which is why I wondered what Wallace would make of McCain 2008. McCain 2000 railed against negativity on the campaign trail. (And rightly so—he was the victim of a scurrilous whisper campaign in South Carolina.) At one point, Wallace writes, McCain announces that he “ordered his staff to cease all Negativity and to pull all the McCain2000 response ads in South Carolina regardless of whether the Shrub [Bush] pulls his own Negative ads or not.”
The Obama and McCain campaigns would surely dispute who first went negative this year. McCain’s people would probably point to Barack Obama repeatedly claiming that McCain wants to stay in Iraq for 100 years. (That’s not what McCain meant.) Obama’s people would cite McCain’s entire campaign apparatus since the “Celebrity” ad, from “Country First” (itself a tacit accusation) to tire gauges to dissing “community organizers to “lipstick” to Obama’s mythical plan to teach sex ed to kindergartners. Whoever “started it,” McCain has embraced negativity and made it central to his pitch.
Wallace would probably pick apart the difference between the candidate and his campaign. A candidate will often delegate attacks to surrogates or staffers. This gives the candidate deniability; when confronted, they can gin up some boilerplate about how campaigns get ugly. In the “lipstick” episode, for example, some pundits thought McCain was doing just this. Chris Matthews said he doubted McCain would himself say, Barack Obama compared Sarah Palin to a pig. That would just be too absurd. But a day later, McCain did just that, first to Telemundo and then on The View.
Authenticity is hard enough to maintain when you’re asserting your own commitment to truth and fairness and integrity. When you’re actively undermining it on a daily basis—as McCain has been in recent weeks, with not just distortions but reckless repetitions thereof—upkeep of authenticity becomes all but impossible.
“[T]he likeliest reason why so many of us care so little about politics,” Wallace writes, “is that modern politicians make us sad, hurt us deep down in ways that are hard even to name, much less talk about. It’s way easier to roll your eyes and not give a shit.”
McCain offered an alternative to the cravenness. But for whatever reason, he changed. (Or, who knows: Maybe the “real McCain” is actually closer to the old, seemingly honest McCain than the new, seemingly dishonest one, but we just assume that the latter is more real because it’s more recent.) The trend toward dishonesty calls to mind another Wallace passage, this one from his famous essay about a cruise. He’s talking about the way people smile when they’re trying to sell you something:
“This is dishonest, but what’s sinister is the cumulative effect that such dishonesty has on us: since it offers a perfect facsimile or simulacrum of goodwill without goodwill’s real spirit, it messes with our heads and eventually starts upping our defenses even in cases of genuine smiles and real art and true goodwill. It makes us feel confused and lonely and impotent and angry and scared. It causes despair.”
The effect of politicians lying—not just lying, but repeating their lies and then lying about lying—is similar. When you feel like a candidate and his surrogates inhabit an alternate reality, it’s not just disappointing—it’s deeply saddening. It’s why so many people watching this campaign are inspired by the candidate’s declared commitment to “change,” however nebulous, but horrified by the means of attaining it.
Update 1:49 p.m.: Wallace did, in fact, weigh in on the presidential campaign in a Wall Street Journal interview back in May. His assessment of McCain: "McCain himself has obviously changed; his flipperoos and weaselings on Roe v. Wade, campaign finance, the toxicity of lobbyists, Iraq timetables, etc. are just some of what make him a less interesting, more depressing political figure now—for me, at least. It's all understandable, of course—he's the GOP nominee now, not an insurgent maverick. Understandable, but depressing."
-
sponsorship
Sarah Palin’s interview last night with Charlie Gibson on ABC (video here) has prompted a furious debate about the definition of the “Bush Doctrine.” (See, for example, here. Or here. Or here.) Some of the most ferocious back-and-forth, as usual, could be found on Wikipedia, which is written and edited (and abused) by its users. After the interview aired, an edit war broke out over the online encyclopedia’s entry on the “Bush Doctrine.” Since her interview aired, the entry has been changed hundreds of times. Here are a few highlights:
- Editors bicker over the difference between “preventive” and “preemptive” war in the Bush Doctrine. They agree that “preventive” is more accurate. Typical liberal wiki-media.
-
The first Palin addition: “As of 10 September 2008, Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska had no idea that such a doctrine was ever articulated by the Bush Administration.” Nine minutes later, another user deletes the sentence, citing “
-
A user tries again: “In an interview with ABC's Charlie Gibson, GOP Vice-Presidential pick Sarah Palin (Governor of Alaska) was unable to define the Bush Doctrine for the nation, despite the fact that her son shipped out to Iraq on the same day of the interview.” Four minutes later, another user adds that her son is “ostensibly one more serviceman deploying because of our government's adherence to the Bush Doctrine. Irony, thy name is Palin.”
-
A user deletes a line that cites the Huffington Post. Among his reasons: “
-
A fight breaks out between “Jere7my” and “EHSFFL2010.” The latter objects to any Palin references. “
-
User “Sun Dang” calls the Bush Doctrine “a misnomer. It does not exist. There is no such doctrine if we stick to the real definition of ‘doctrine’ like the Christian Doctrines that are on paper not imagined.” He argues that Gibson got it wrong and “should have read wikipedia first.”
-
-
sponsorship
Both campaigns promised a truce yesterday for the
anniversary of 9/11. But they went a step further, backpedaling from previous attacks—on
community organizers, in John McCain’s case, and on small-town mayors, in Barack Obama’s.
At last night’s forum on service at Columbia University,
McCain praised community organizers after Sarah Palin and Rudy Giuliani mocked them in their
convention speeches last week. “Of course I respect community organizers,”
McCain said.
“Of course I respect people who serve their communities. Senator Obama’s
service in that area is outstanding.”
Meanwhile, Obama went out of his way to praise small-town
mayors, after dinging the town of Wasilla
for having “I think, 50 employees.” “We had an awful lot of small-town mayors
at the Democratic convention, I assure you,” Obama said
on Thursday. “The mayors have some of the toughest jobs in the country because
that's where the rubber hits the road. We yak-yak-yak in the Senate. They
actually have to fill potholes and trim trees and make sure the garbage is
taken away.”
To some, that might sound like damning with faint praise. Tough job, there, taking out the trash. But
presumably Obama meant well. At least this time he didn’t call her home town “Wasilly.”
-
sponsorship
The quest to prove that Sarah Palin is underqualified to be vice president has met with an equal and opposite campaign to prove that she’s the smartest, kindest, shrewdest, ballsiest, most caring, experienced, saintly woman in the history of the Western world. (And anyone who says otherwise hates women.)
So we’ve decided to inaugurate the “Sarah Palin Hyperbole Watch,” a running log of the most exaggerated praise for John McCain’s running mate. Don’t get us wrong: Sarah Palin is an impressive woman. But is she really the world’s leading expert in carbon sequestration?
Our first installment comes from John McCain himself, in an interview with a local TV station in Portland, Maine (video here):
“She knows more about energy than probably anyone else in the United States of America.”
T. Boone Pickens, Al Gore, ExxonMobil Chairman Rex Tillerson, and the entire leadership of the Department of Energy could not be reached for comment.
That was the day after Fred Thompson, speaking at a McCain-Palin rally in Fairfax, Va., said she was “the most remarkable success story in American politics.” If success is defined as “getting picked against all odds to run on John McCain’s ticket,” then, yes, Fred Thompson is correct.
But neither of those exaggerations beats columnist Larry Kudlow’s claim today that Palin is responsible for moving the commodities markets:
Even the financial pages are looking better. Oil is about to drop under $100 a barrel. Gold is plunging. And the greenback continues to rally in true King Dollar fashion. Is there a Sarah Palin effect here, too?
There is, but it’s not what Kudlow thinks. The Dow Jones Industrial Average plummeted the day after Palin’s speech in St. Paul, Minn. The Dow is still down about 300 points since McCain announced his pick.
Readers, feel free to submit other examples of Sarah Palin’s stratospheric qualifications. No claim too exaggerated!
-
sponsorship
When a politician says something, the assumption is that it adheres, however loosely or distantly or illogically, to the truth. This week has shown that assumption to be hopelessly naive.
First, the McCain campaign repeated the falsehood that Sarah Palin said, “Thanks, but no thanks” to the “Bridge to Nowhere.” (Really, she said, "Thanks" and "No thanks.") Then they suggested Obama wanted to teach kindergartners about sex—he did no such thing. Then they accused him of calling Sarah Palin a “pig with lipstick”—a stretch, even according to Mike Huckabee. And now they suggest—citing FactCheck.org, no less—that Obama propagated “misleading” rumors about Palin.
The FactCheck folks are displeased. Today they posted an article saying the McCain ad “distorts our finding.” They had called the Palin rumors “misleading,” but in no way suggested the rumors were coming from Obama. The Annenberg Center’s director, Kathleen Hall Jamieson, is mulling whether or not to take legal action, since the McCain ad technically violates their copyright policy. Jamieson tells me a statement may be forthcoming: “Earlier ads have done the same thing,” she writes. “I am trying to make sure we have identified all of them before issuing a statement.”
This cycle has seen a proliferation of fact-checking sites, from Annenberg’s FactCheck.org to CQ’s PolitiFact to the Washington Post’s Pinocchio-doling Fact Checker column. For a while, they seemed to have an effect. The campaigns started sending out “fact check” dossiers to back up their own ads. When Barack Obama claimed that “gas prices have never been higher,” PolitiFact corrected him, and he stopped making the claim. They also tweaked Joe Biden for saying that John McCain voted with President Bush 95 percent of the time; the Obama camp adjusted their statements to the correct figure of 90 percent.
Now, though, facts seem irrelevant, at least to the campaigns. “I think we may have had an impact earlier in the campaign,” says Viveca Novak of FactCheck.org, “but now we don’t seem to be having much of one.”
It’s not that the campaigns are ignoring the fact-check sites. They’re misusing them. The same week McCain misleadingly cited FactCheck.org, the campaign cherrypicked a sentence from PolitiFact about the Bridge to Nowhere, quoting them as saying, "It's true that on Sept. 21, 2007, Palin officially killed the project." They left out the part of the article about how she also supported it. The best part: The Obama camp cited the same article to back up its claim that Palin committed “a full flop.”
To be sure, this is what happens at the end of a close race. The truth proves malleable, the stakes get higher, and the window for voters to Google every statement a candidate makes narrows. One can also conceive of a candidate who’s a horrible liar but would make a better president. Lyndon Johnson, for example, liked to say his great-grandfather died at the Alamo. He died in bed.
Plus, the fact checkers don’t seem to mind. “It’s not really any different from what we’ve seen in American politics for decades,” says Bill Adair of PolitiFact. “These guys say what they want to say. My job as a journalist isn’t to get them to change their tune.” Brooks Jackson of FactCheck.org also dismisses the notion that they need to have an “impact.” “I think that’s the wrong goal to have,” he says. “For one thing, they’ll break your heart. For another thing, I’m old fashioned. My idea of a proper role of a journalist is not to be part of the contest.”
-
sponsorship
In every election, recycling is inevitable. But rarely does a candidate (or his supporters) use the exact same attacks that were once leveled against him.
So it has been with Barack Obama and Sarah Palin. If some of the charges against Palin sound familiar, maybe it’s because they were the same arguments used against Obama by his primary opponents and by McCain himself before he picked Palin. Here’s a quick rundown of the accusations, and why they might ring a few bells:
She’s inexperienced. You’d think the Obama campaign would avoid this line of attack, given Obama’s own résumé. Apparently not. “Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency,” said Obama spokesman Bill Burton the day McCain picked her. In response, McCain/Palin tried to shift the conversation to “executive experience.”
She’s just a pretty face. Joe Biden’s comment that Palin is “good-looking” got twisted from a self-deprecating joke into a slur. But others have tried to use Palin’s looks against her. Critics on the left commonly refer to her as a “former beauty queen” or, my favorite, “the woman who failed to become Miss Alaska,” as if that presages future failures.
She only gave a good speech. “Sarah Palin delivered a great speech, but we haven’t heard anything else about what she’s going to do,” said Arkansas Sen. Blanche Lincoln. Compare that to Hillary Clinton’s line that John McCain has “a lifetime of experience,” while Obama “has a speech he gave in 2002.”
She’s not right for Jews. Obama allies are capitalizing on Jewish discomfort with Palin, just as his opponents once suggested that Obama doesn’t suit Jewish interests. Rep. Robert Wexler has attacked Palin for appearing at a 1999 event with Pat Buchanan. Critics also point to a recent speaker at Palin’s church, David Brickner, executive director of Jews for Jesus, as reason for mistrust. Nor does it help that McCain passed over Joe Lieberman for the veep spot.
She’s a “gimmick.” In a now-famous hot-mic moment, former top McCain adviser Mike Murphy called the Palin choice “gimmicky.” Critics have long Obama of being an unserious candidate as well—a “lightweight,” a product of “hype” over substance. He has also been criticized for using campaign “gimmicks” like texting supporters his VP announcement.
Soon we will hear that Palin’s promises are “just words,” that’s she’s unprepared for 3 a.m. phone calls, and that she wanted to be vice president since kindergarten.
-
sponsorship
The McCain/Palin campaign is blasting Barack Obama for using the phrase "lipstick on a pig" when talking about the Republicans' message of change. Sarah Palin's supporters say the remark was clearly an insult aimed at her. But Slate found footage of John McCain from earlier this year in which he uses the very same phrase to put down Hillary Clinton's health care plan. "I don't like to use this term," McCain told the audience at a May town hall event in Denver, "but the latest proposal I see is putting lipstick on a pig."
Watch the clip below:
-
sponsorship
Several blogs and publications have recently attempted to calculate the odds that John McCain will live another four or eight years, bringing an actuary’s dispassion to the delicate subject of the Republican nominee’s age. Based on the Social Security Administration’s life expectancy tables, the Times Online concluded that McCain will live another 13 years, while a Daily Kos diarist calculated that McCain’s odds of dying naturally during his first term were 15 percent. His odds of not surviving two terms were nearly 1-in-3. Politico arrived at similar figures.
Actuaries get rightfully nervous when journalists get their hands on these tables. The odds that a 72-year-old male will die in the next year are calculated from large data sets and apply rather poorly to individuals. To get a better picture of how both McCain and Barack Obama fare, an actuarial firm in Atlanta called Bragg Associates made a series of calculations tailored to the health records that both candidates made public. Rather than estimating life expectancy, Bragg specializes in “health expectancy,” the ability to function lucidly and without assistance—the kind of qualities one hopes for in a president. As the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported, Bragg originally concluded that McCain has 8.4 years of good health ahead of him while Barack Obama has 21.9.
At Slate’s request, Bragg fleshed out those predictions into a series of probabilities that the two candidates will remain healthy in office year by year. Their findings are below. (Mouse over a data point to see the percentage value.)
-
sponsorship
By Derek Thompson
One of many questions facing organizers of the Republican National Convention was this: In an election about change, how would the GOP reconcile the toxic unpopularity of the president without bashing George W. Bush? The resounding answer: Pretend he’s not there.
George Bush’s name was uttered once—once!—throughout the entire RNC in speeches reviewed by Slate. We crawled the transcripts of the Democratic and Republican conventions to compare how the different parties used the outgoing president’s name in their speeches. The results from the DNC were hardly surprising. In 184 mentions, Democratic speakers tied Bush to the fading economy and the bungled wars of the Middle East. But in more than half those mentions (95) they tied his name, like a political anchor, to Sen. John McCain. If you watched part of the convention, you probably caught the ubiquitous stat that McCain has voted with Bush about 95 percent of the time in the last year. Some variation of that number made 14 appearances last week.
Since the RNC was all about McCain’s maverick streak, the old guard from the White House went into hibernation mode. Dick Cheney’s name was shut out of the conventions while the veep toured Georgia. Condoleezza Rice? Nary a mention. The RNC gave the president his eight minutes from the White House lawn, but he didn’t get much praise from the podium. Three out of the four times the word Bush appears in the speech transcripts, it’s referring to wife Laura. The solitary George Bush mention came from Rudy Guiliani praising the president for his willingness to use the term evil. The overall strategy was clear: The best way to convince voters that John McCain is not George W. Bush was to ignore Bush altogether.
President Bush’s sole mention at the RNC puts him in a strange category. Other figures receiving the one-and-done treatment in St. Paul, Minn., include Al Gore, Hillary Clinton, and Bill Clinton; vanquished Democratic candidates George McGovern, Jimmy Carter, and Walter Mondale; and adorable presence/future hair stylist Piper Palin.
Here are the numbers for the RNC:
George Bush: 1 mention
Cheney: 0
And here is the final tally for the DNC:
Bush: 184 mentions (95 linked to McCain)
Cheney: 20 (19 linked to Bush)
For a fuller analysis of just the speeches by the four candidates, click here.
-
sponsorship
The biggest moment Thursday night in the Xcel Center—the time and place of John McCain’s acceptance speech—was when the lights went down and the jumbo screens lit up with a video about … Sarah Palin. Her face flashed on-screen, and I almost reached for my earplugs. During McCain’s speech later on, I reached for my hearing aid.
For whatever reason, McCain had trouble jazzing the crowd. Maybe it was his tendency to speak over the cheering rather than wait for it to build and subside. Even 10 minutes into his speech—around the point at which Palin got comfortable Wednesday night—McCain still wasn’t hitting his rhythm. I squinted to make sure it wasn’t still Tom Ridge onstage.
It could also be that McCain’s speech was predictable—heavily biographical with an emphasis on his “maverick” streak and his service to country—whereas Palin’s was 100 percent fresh. McCain’s policy solutions sounded laundry list-y. Parts of the speech felt soporific by design. Even the weakest speeches repackage platitudes in ways we haven’t heard them before. But he pledged to “stand on your side” twice and urged people eight times to “stand up.” He promised to “fight” for various things 25 times. What hope and change are to Obama, stand and fight are to McCain.
The tepid reaction to McCain (save the dutiful screaming at the end) may have had a lot to do enthusiasm for Palin. Republicans are now going through post-Palin depression. Her speech on Wednesday combined clever attacks on Obama with warm-and-fuzzy biography and the sort of red-meat conservative rallying cries that convention-goers devour. Granted, expectations were low. But she exceeded them with such style and confidence that it made McCain look stiff by comparison. It’s no coincidence that two of McCain’s biggest applause lines were his mentions of Palin.
Of course, novelty and news value play a part, too. McCain’s surprise pick delighted conservatives otherwise ticked off by McCain’s unorthodoxy on immigration and campaign finance. Others glommed onto her family story. (Republicans here are psyched about Bristol’s baby.) And she injected the ticket with much-needed energy, plus a dose of sympathy.
No doubt McCain’s camp is breathing a sigh of relief at Palin’s popularity. While concerns about her maverick credentials remain, few still describe her as a “gamble” anymore. What no one anticipated is that she might overshadow McCain himself.
-
sponsorship
An introductory video tells the story of John McCain’s military
service, including a disastrous fire aboard an aircraft carrier:
“Somehow, John McCain’s life was spared. Perhaps he had more
to do.”
Wait, so could he be … The One?
-
sponsorship
So far, the security here at Xcel has been a tight seal. But
just as McCain starts to speak, a young many on a balcony unfurls a sign—“McCain
Votes Against Vets”—and starts yelling. “Ask McCain about his voting record,”
he shouts.
The crowd turns to look and drowns him out with a round of “USA! USA!” (He
chants along with them.) Security guards are trying to reach him, but he’s all
the way in a corner. Instead, an RNC volunteer reaches out, snags his sign, and
tears it up.
Police finally persuade the guy to leave his perch.
Now others in the audience are yelling. Men with "Law Enforcement" tags are roaming the aisles.
Update 11:48 p.m.: The American Prospect's Dana Goldstein got an interview with the heckler.
-
sponsorship
ST. PAUL—John McCain is about to do his 2 p.m. walk-through in the Xcel center arena. But for now, the center of attention is Trace Adkins, the 6-foot-6 inch, goateed country singer slated to sing the National Anthem tonight.
“Oh my God,” says convention attendee Deb Suchla into her phone when she spots him. “I can’t breathe.”
Adkins is hard not to spot. He’s part cowboy, part Norse god, with a bass to match Sam Elliott. He hangs back in a corner next to the stage, but fans keep drawing him out to the rope line, asking to take pictures with him. Each time he tries to vanish, another fan grabs one of his enormous hands and pulls him back. Adkins’ hang-dog expression never changes, except when a camera is about to flash, at which point half his face cranks up into a crooked grin.
“Will you take a picture with my daughter’s elephant?” asks a man, shoving a stuffed doll into Adkins’ arms. Adkins looks confused. “OK,” he says, holding the elephant up next to his head. “But that’s kinda silly.”
His fans are diverse, at least for the RNC. Young girls, security guards, elected officials, older women—especially older women. Suchla says Adkins is “the only man I’d leave my husband for.” (Don’t worry, her husband knows.) One of his songs, “Hot Mama,” talks about how his wife is still sexy even if she can’t squeeze into “them old jeans.” When the ladies hear that, Suchla says, “they just melt.”
Adkins is an avowed Republican. Fans cite his song “Arlington,” sung from the perspective of a dead soldier, as evidence of his support the troops in Iraq. But it can also come off a little creepy. Here’s the chorus from “Arlington”:
And I’m proud to be on this peaceful piece of property, I’m on sacred ground and I’m in the best of company,
And I’m thankful for those thankful for the things I’ve done,
I can rest in peace, I'm one of the chosen ones,
I made it to Arlington.
His most famous turn, though, was as a runner-up on The Celebrity Apprentice, where he faced off in the finals against British tabloid editor Piers Morgan. Suchla described it as a “battle between good and evil”—she must have watched Mitt Romney’s speech—in which Adkins was “decent and honorable” from start to finish.
Real life has been more complicated. Adkins was charged for drunk driving in 2001 and has battled alcoholism. He was once a barroom brawler. His second wife shot him in the heart and lungs.
But of course that’s not a disqualification for the RNC. I ask Adkins if he’s nervous. “Not really,” he says. “I did the World Series.” Indeed, his sound test sounds marvelous. His high note—“land of the freeeeee”—must be somewhere around middle C.
When I ask Suchla for her last name, she jokingly suggests I include her number. You know, in case Adkins is reading.
-
sponsorship
On Tuesday, Trailhead asked you for your suggestions on what Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston should name their baby. Many of you thought the contest was a little tasteless—a number of people suggested that Bristol and Levi might want to name the child "F--- you, Slate." The best of the rest of our 200-some entries:
Juneau
"Titular chick in unwed teen pregnancy flick; city in Alaska."—Anthony Radanovich
Slick
"Named for the famous Alaskan spill."—Rich Sapienza
Puck
"Since the Palins love hockey so much."—Becky from San Diego.
Trojan
"After the mythical god of premarital safe sex."—Anonymous
Strauss
"Because it goes with Levi."—Marc Naimark
Eagleton
"Sure, a first and last name that both end in 'ton' may be a bit much, but Bristol and Levi don't really strike me as the kind of people who would vet their child's name before picking it."—Kim Mendelsohn
Mark
"Short for earmark."—Robert Sawyer
Gravina
"As in the proposed Gravina Island Bridge, aka Alaska's Bridge to Nowhere."—Jeff
-
sponsorship
Tonight, Sarah Palin crystallized the McCain campaign’s main strategy against Barack Obama: withering sarcasm.
You could almost hear the words drip. “My fellow citizens,” she said, “the American presidency is not supposed to be a journey of ‘personal discovery.’ ” Ouch! “I guess a small-town mayor is sort of like a ‘community organizer,’ except that you have actual responsibilities.” Yikes, cut it out already! “Listening to him speak, it's easy to forget that this is a man who has authored two memoirs but not a single major law or reform.” For the love of ... “This is a man who can give an entire speech about the wars America is fighting, and never use the word victory except when he's talking about his own campaign.” OK, OK, tap out!
Palin will likely get accolades for her oratory, her mom-next-door likability, and her willingness to hit Obama. But hats off for being not just on-message, but on-tone.
McCain’s campaign has lately felt like a laugh track. Obama travels to Europe. McCain mocks him as an elitist celebrity airhead. Obama fills a stadium. He’s like Britney. Obama works out. He’s conceited. Obama suggests inflating your tires to save gas. Call it “Obama’s energy plan.” Anything the Obama camp does, McCain has a pat response: derision. The message boils down to, Can you believe this guy is running for president?
So far, it’s been working. McCain’s “Celebrity” ads apparently cut into Obama’s lead in national polls. And until his acceptance speech in Denver, Obama seemed reluctant to hit back.
Palin seems well-suited to join in the fun. She’s smart, she can clearly land a zinger, and, unlike McCain, she actually looks like she’s having fun up there. There’s another aspect, too, and here we’ve all been instructed to tread lightly: Palin’s gender could well strengthen her attacks. Sure, the text is that she’s simply highlighting Obama’s weaknesses. But the subtext is that she’s emasculating him. Or at least that’s the way McCain’s people should hope it looks. This general election has already had its share of measuring contests. Team McCain has done its best to paint Obama as a fey elitist—not unsuccessfully, either. In that respect, Palin could be their best weapon yet.
“Now you know why we picked Gov. Palin,” McCain said when he came onstage after her speech. It’s true. Tonally, she’s a perfect fit.
-
sponsorship
From Sarah Palin’s speech:
I'm just one of many moms who will say an extra prayer each night for our sons and daughters going into harm's way. Our son, Track, is 19. And one week from tomorrow, September 11th, he'll deploy to Iraq with the Army infantry in the service of his country.
My nephew, Casey (ph), also enlisted and serves on a carrier in the Persian Gulf.
My family is so proud of both of them and of all the fine men and women serving the country in uniform.
(APPLAUSE)
From John McCain’s interview with Time last week:
Q: A lot of people know about your service from your books, but most people don't know that you have two sons currently in the military. Can you describe what it means to have Jack and Jimmy in uniform?
A: We don't discuss our sons.
<!--[endif]-->
-
sponsorship
Sorry, McCain Web team. DrillBabyDrill.com is taken. And it's a site about ... wind turbines.
-
sponsorship
To Mike Huckabee’s half-congratulations of Obama:
So, I say with sincerity that I have great respect for Senator Obama's historic achievement to become his party's nominee—not because of his color, but with indifference to it. Party or politics aside, we celebrate this milestone because it elevates our country.
A resounding "meh."
-
sponsorship
Is it just me, or was Mitt Romney’s address the most frightening speech delivered this election cycle?
Romney has been criticized in the past for looking fake. When he tries to do relaxed, he looks stilted. When he tries to do passionate, he looks sappy. Tonight, when he tried to do tough, he looked like a helmet-haired Brooks Brothers angel of death.
Maybe it’s because he spent half the time looking into the camera. (The teleprompter is located directly below the center camera.) Maybe it’s because 17 sentences in the transcript end with exclamation points.
Either way, I think he succeeded mightily at convincing Republicans they made the right choice—not him.
-
sponsorship
The Alaska delegation reportedly underwent media training Sunday night. It shows. The group entered the convention floor Tuesday afternoon wearing neon-orange reflective vests and white hard hats with “Drill Here” painted on the sides. But they might as well have read, “Don’t Ask Us About Bristol.”
Ever since John McCain picked Gov. Sarah Palin as his running mate, the Alaska delegation has been getting Alaskan-sized levels of attention. Every other person in their convention floor section is carrying either a camera or a notepad. Reporters kneel next to every aisle seat, collecting quotes. These folks aren’t used to being fawned over by Judy Woodruff.
The delegates were full of praise for the vice presidential nominee, of course. They all know her. In fact, everybody knows everybody. “It’s a small state,” says delegate Mead Treadwell of Anchorage.
I asked about Palin’s reversal on the infamous $400 million “Bridge to Nowhere.” June Burkhart, a delegate from Willow, says it’s overblown. “We all supported it initially,” Burkhart explains. That is, until they realized it was going to jeopardize the tourist industry.
But, anyway: Drilling. Pete Higgins, a big fellow with a goatee, has pasted a photo of the Alaskan tundra across the back of his vest. It shows caribou grazing in front of an oil refinery. The message: Drilling for oil doesn’t hurt wildlife. “There were 2,600 caribou back in 1972,” Higgins explains. “Today there’s over 30,000.” If anything, he says, pipelines protect caribou. The 12-foot-high pipelines provide heat for the caribou to huddle under, and shade. Some caribou even birth calves under the pipeline. Plus, predators don’t like to come near the refinery. So, really, it’s a safe haven.
I ask him why the caribou in the photo look all skinny and mangy. “They’re shedding,” he says.
Higgins actually worked on oil pipelines in the late '70s. Now he’s a dentist. I ask him whether that was a big career change. “Not really,” he says, “I’m still drilling.” (He admits he’s used that one before.)
This is Higgins’ first convention, and so far he has few complaints. Well, maybe one. Their governor is the vice presidential nominee, he points out. “Shouldn’t we be up front?” Instead, they’re situated in the back right corner. (Next to Oklahoma. Shudder.)
But the “Alaska doesn’t get enough respect” argument doesn’t quite work. They’re the belles of the ball. Other delegates are passing by, shaking hands. “You must be thrilled!” exclaims one. Others ask to exchange state pins. Treadwell offers an Oklahoma delegate a pin of Alaska’s state flower, the forget-me-not. Alaskans sent packages of forget-me-nots to members of Congress in 1959, he explains, to remind them to vote for the state’s accession to the union. Maybe that was Palin’s secret, too.
I ask Treadwell what he makes of claims that Palin isn’t a serious choice. “Ask Exxon if she’s serious,” he says. “Ask ConocoPhillips if she’s serious,” he says, referring to her battles with the oil companies over drilling leases. He reminds me that Alaska is a border state. It trades with Russia and Canada. It’s the site of a major U.S. missile defense system. People forget this stuff, he says.
The delegates dismiss concerns that Palin is inexperienced. “I say, who’s ready?” Higgins says. “No one’s ever ready. Half the senators in the Senate aren’t ready. It’s about how fast can you learn.” Treadwell emphasizes Palin’s executive experience—all 19 months of it—compared with Barack Obama’s.
Speaking of executive experience, Higgins tells me he’s president of the Alaskan Dental Society, which boasts 256 members. He points to the stage. “I’ll be up there in four years.”
-
sponsorship
On Monday, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin shocked the political world with news that her 17-year-old daughter Bristol is five months pregnant. While the political ramifications of the pregnancy are much disputed, one thing is perfectly clear: Bristol’s baby will be born into a family with thoroughly weird names.
Bristol’s siblings are named Track, Willow, Piper, and Trig; Sarah Palin and her husband Todd were inspired by a variety of sources. Track is named after the sport, a family favorite. Bristol is christened after Bristol Bay, a preferred family fishing spot. Trig, the family says, is derived from the Norse for true or strength. Willow is the name of a community in Alaska. And Piper—well, as Todd Palin told People, "There's just not too many Pipers out there and it's a cool name." (If you don’t find those speculations satisfactory, Andrew Sullivan posted speculation from two readers that Willow and Piper are named after TV witches; that’s been more or less debunked.)
Reader contest alert: With all this intrafamily competition for unique names, Bristol Palin and her husband-to-be, Levi Johnston, need your help. Send your baby name ideas to trailheadcontest@gmail.com or post them in the Fray by 6 p.m. EST on Wednesday, Sept. 3. Please write your suggestion for the baby’s name in the subject line of the e-mail or the Fray post, then include a sentence or two about its derivation in the body. (E-mail may be quoted by name unless the writer stipulates otherwise.)