Matt Moon's blog

Bottom Line Up Front: The next leadership group of the GOP must rise above the different wings of the party. Political inclusiveness, public policy creativity, long term strategic thinking and risk-taking are the characteristics I'll be looking for in a chairman/minority leader.

I am now a proud coalition member of RebuildTheParty.com, and today's newspapers are highlighting stories and opinion pieces on the future of the GOP. Adam Nagourney of the New York Times writes an all-encompassing piece on the upcoming RGA meeting in Miami as well as leadership battles for the RNC chairmanship and Congressional minority leadership positions. Newt Gingrich points out that "the party would be wiser to offer a broad idea of what it stood for and how it would lead the country, and pick its battles carefully." Gingrich and former Maryland Lt. Governor and current GOPAC chairman are privately seeking the RNC chairmanship, according to Ralph Hallow of the Washington Times. One of the sticking points seems to focus on how to emulate Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy:

"Republicans, especially state party leaders, have become envious of the organization and money that Mr. Dean's operation deployed in two victorious election cycles in which Democrats regained and expanded control of Congress and captured the White House.

"Republicans agree that their national party is leaderless and in desperate need of someone who has the force of personality and history of accomplishments to command national attention to take on Mr. Obama. Someone is also needed to unite disparate factions that, even in the best of times, generate internal friction among themselves."

I've written before on the importance of building a GOP Farm Team, but a little disappointed with the few responses to questions I had for state party chairs. Patrick recently urged us to "expand the map" by coming up with a 435 District Strategy. There were 8 op-eds today on the future of the GOP, 6 of them in the Wall Street Journal, that deserve some thought and response.

I'm writing this post from my hometown of Anchorage, AK, where the results should come in soon. As you will see, this letter is just as much a message to the Right as it is a congratulatory message to Barack Obama.

Dear Mr. President-Elect:

Congratulations on your victory tonight. As a conservative who voted for your opponent, Sen. John McCain, it is a disappointing night for me and those who share my philosophy of government. Yet, despite our disagreements on public policy, I am (and other fellow Americans should be) proud of your accomplishment.

As someone who cares deeply about the issues surrounding race and ethnicity in America, I sincerely hope that your Presidency can contribute to moving us towards a more color-blind society.

While it could be argued that no Republican could win this year, your campaign has still taught us several important things. First, your campaign has shown that no state should be taken for granted. With the grassroots organization that you built, which is a bottom-up phenomenon itself, you put folks everywhere, including my home state of Alaska. You should thank Senator Hillary Clinton for battling you to the bitter end in your primary fight: she made you a stronger candidate and it forced you to build a stronger grassroots team in all 50 states, contributing to your victory. You knew that you wouldn't win every state. But Howard Dean's long term 50 state strategy put you on the offense and McCain on the defense throughout the fall, and your team assisted many Democrats down ticket in red states that were going to stay red this year.

Second, your campaign has thankfully shown that public financing is dead. I think most fellow conservatives would agree that one of our most vehement disagreements with Sen. McCain was his support of public financing of campaign. While your explanation of not taking public money was disingenuous at best, it gives both parties a chance to compete for creative ways to raise money and gives the country a chance to call for more transparency in campaign finance.

Third, your campaign has shown that a centralized long term campaign organization is not mutually exclusive with decentralized short term action plans. Over the past decade, failed campaigns have shown that grassroots action by itself cannot succeed without direction. In this election, the GOP has shown that revolving too much around a "campaign command center" can cause inflexibility and limited mobility in a grassroots organization.

Tonight the pundits will talk about increased turnout, the youth vote, the pendulum swinging back to the Left, etc. But I want to mention some things about your election that you had no control over. You are the first Internet President. How will your administration use the growing Web 1.0 tools and Web 2.0 community for public policy purposes? You have a large netroots organization behind you. How will they play in a governing position vs. playing in a campaigning position? You come into the White House with a divided Democratic Party: the netroots far left vs. the grassroots center-left. Where will you govern from? Will you try to merge the netroots with the grassroots?

From your tax proposals to your health care plan to your foreign policy to your philosophy of government, expect a "loyal opposition" from a changed Republican Party. You will face a conservative movement that will fight you on the intellectual battleground or continue to be anti-intellectual. You will face a conservative movement that will come up with creative counter-solutions that the American people can be informed of, or a movement that will look back to old messages that don't work. You will face a conservative movement that will promote principles of freedom or promote a watered-down version of more government. One thing is for sure: you will face a conservative movement yearning for a new set of leaders.

I will do my utmost to fight against every one of your proposals that limits freedom, and fight for every one of your proposals that promote freedom, although I am pessimistic about your plans to do the latter. From my point of view, it's not government's job to make history; that's a job that should be left to the American people.

But for making history tonight, congratulations once again, Mr. President-Elect.

Sincerely,

MM

The trial of Sen. Ted Stevens is almost over, with the case now in the hands of the jury. The trial hasn't been free of drama: the prosecution mishandled evidence to the point where the case was almost dismissed, and eleven of the jurors asked the judge to kick off the twelfth for "violent outbursts." Today, the judge replaced one of the jurors whose father passed away with an alternate. With nine days to go until election day, the verdict will with all likelihood be handed down before the weekend.

When the indictment of Stevens came down, my initial reaction was that Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich would be the next United States Senator from the Last Frontier. But after the initial earthquake, the aftershock worked in Stevens' favor. Alaskans learned more details about the indictment, which essentially came down to "purposefully" leaving certain things off of his Senate financial disclosure forms, a charge where the motive is very hard to prove. I was shocked that this is all that the government had on him. It also didn't help that Begich himself essentially committed the same "crime" and "plead guilty" by paying a $1,420 fine to the Alaska Public Offices Commission, the state's financial disclosure watchdog agency. With an initial 13 point deficit immediately after the indictment, undecided Alaskans rallied around Stevens before and during the trial. His campaign rans some very good ads, and he is now anywhere between up 2 point to down 2 points in various polls: for all intents and purposes, a tie.

Bottom line: acquittal for Stevens = big win for Stevens, conviction for Stevens = big win for Begich. I know there are a lot of conservatives who read and write on this blog that aren't fans of Stevens, and I understand. (I've promised some people a piece on why I still support Ted, and that should be coming soon.) But it's been a weird past few months for Alaska from this trial to McCain's selection of Sarah Palin. Let's take a look and the stakeholders affected from the eventual verdict of this trial.

Senate Filibuster

Let's assume that Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders are in the Democratic caucus, and make the count from 51. Shaheen def. Sununu (NH), Warner def. Gilmore (VA), Merkley def. Smith (OR), Udall def. Schaffer (CO), Udall def. Pearce (NM), Franken def. Coleman (MN), Hagan def. Dole (NC), Musgrove def. Wicker (MS), Lunsford def. McConnell (KY), and Martin def. Chambliss (GA). That makes it 61. The likelihood of those last two races (KY and GA) going blue are slim but possible. So let's make it 59.

Political junkies might be staying up through the night to watch Alaska's Senate race, and I doubt that the average juror even knows what a filibuster is.

The Campaign of Mark Begich

The Stevens campaign's strategy is clear if he's acquitted: continue their message of his long list of contributions to the state. On the other hand, Mark Begich has to be the most frustrated Congressional candidate in the country. First, the selection of Gov. Palin to the national ticket is limiting the precious amount of free media he was used to getting as Mayor. Second, without the indictments, Begich was probably the favorite to win the election (but not the clear favorite) because of what the "ethical cloud" over Stevens. With that cloud maybe clearing a few days before the election, Begich faces a big loss if Stevens is cleared of all charges.

Third, and most importantly, any strategy Begich runs is a lose-lose scenario. After the indictments came down, Begich couldn't slap Stevens around because of the overwhelming support Ted got after the indictments. The DSCC took on that role with a series of ads and mailers that have gained no traction whatsoever. Plus, the Alaska Republican Party is running their own offense against Begich, running ads about his own financial problems. Begich also can't just run an "issue-based" campaign as he promised. So just a few days ago, Begich decided to switch gears and start attacking Stevens, which signals that Begich is gambling. Even if Stevens is acquitted, Begich is trying to keep the "cloud" over Stevens. But the fact is that if the acquittal comes, Begich is done.

The AK-AL House Race

It looks as if Don Young is making another comeback. Down double-digits earlier this fall to former State House minority leader, Ethan Berkowitz, the latest polls have him anywhere between 5 to 8 points down. Berkowitz has the same problem as Begich: no free media coverage of his issues. Rural Alaska will hold strong for both Stevens and Young; the question is how much the potential acquittal of Stevens will hold off swing voters in urban Alaska (Anchorage and Fairbanks) from going Berkowitz's way. I still give the advantage to Berkowitz because Young used all of his money against Sean Parnell in the Republican primary. But a Steven acquittal could put him over the top if Young keeps up this momentum.

The Alaska State Legislature

The State Senate is holding at 11 Republicans to 9 Democrats, although the 6 of the Republicans joined the 9 Democrats to form a bipartisan coalition. In all likelihood, this number holds, although there are open Reublican seats in Fairbanks where Republican Cynthia Henry (a former staffer for Ted Stevens) has the advantage over Democrat Joe Paskvan, and in Anchorage where current Republican State Representative Kevin Meyer has the advantage over former Anchorage city councilman Doug Van Etten.

There is no doubt that Palin being at the top of the ticket has helped. McCain went from a shaky single digit lead in Alaska to a healthy double digit lead. The same can be said in the State House, where Republicans have a 23 to 17 advantage. There are about 6 Republican seats and 2 Democratic seats that are in some danger of switching over. The probability is that Democrats will only pick up one or maybe two of the Republican seats. The problem is that there are enough RINOs in the State House that would create a coalition with the Democrats if the Republican advantage was eroded to 21 to 19. A Stevens acquittal would secure a healthy Republican majority. A Stevens conviction will probably mean a State House coalition, or maybe even an outright Democratic majority.

How does this change the political landscape of Alaska? Let's take a look at the difference. Stevens acquittal = Stevens in the Senate, possibly Young staying in the House, and Republican majorities in the state legislature. Stevens conviction = Begich and Berkowitz in the Senate and House, along with at least Democratic-controlled coalitions in the state legislature. Add this to liberal majorities in many city councils across Alaska, Democrats have fertile ground from which to build a blue farm team in a red state.

Never before have 12 people who are not registered voters in the State of Alaska have had so much influence in Alaska, and possibly the potential rubber-stamping of a liberal agenda from the Hill.

Bottom Line Up Front: The Right needs to rethink and reshape our style, substance, and strategy based on the opportunities and challenges that face us now. Evolve or die.

Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama today was one of the three "ouches" Moe Lane pointed out on RedState, the other two being the $150M raised by Obama last month and the 100K strong crowd for Obama in St. Louis.

Nobody should take much stock in endorsements, and this wasn't unexpected. Plus, I think John McCain can do a lot more with the aftermath of Obama's conversation with Joe the Plumber than Obama can do with Powell's endorsement.

But Powell does mention a few things that are worth noting and reacting to.

Bottom Line Up Front: No matter what America's short term future holds (a liberal White House, a liberal Congress, etc.), the long term future of the conservative movement depends on our ability to evolve in substance and unify around principles, not personalities.

Anybody who blogs on this site can list the reasons why they're an American conservative. In fact, many conservatives who don't blog, or those who don't even know what a blog is, can list their reasons with an adequate level of logic in their explanation. But not every conservative is called to be part of a conservative movement; or, more importantly, not every conservative is attracted to be a participant of one or more parts of the conservative movement.

The reason I was attracted to the conservative movement as a student at the beginning of this decade was because I felt that the Right, significantly more so than the Left, had a better combination of message and infrastructure that could consistently win elections and legislative battles. One of the reasons why? It seemed to me at the time that the Right was a lot more concerned with principles than personalities when it came to political battles, the old cliche being that "Democrats fall in love, and Republicans fall in line." The Right has lost this advantage, not only because of the Democrats have successfully evolved their infrastructure to fit modern times, as Jon Henke notes; conservatives have also become intellectually lazy. Case in point: our movement's continuing love affair with Ronald Reagan.

*10:32 PM EST*

McCain's closing statement: "A Record of Reform" :-) ... this needs to be on every ad, every speech, every press release from the McCain-Palin campaign from now on.

Obama's closing statement: "McCain = Bush" ... I think McCain put a chink in this piece of armor tonight.

One noticable thing tonight that concerns me? The gender gap with women consistently favoring Obama on most of the economic questions in the CNN dials.

McCain's score: 9.5/10 ... Obama's score: 6/10

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

*10:25 PM EST*

Rob Bluey tweets: "A Democrat who talks about parental responsibility?!? This is amazing. It's the one thing I like about Obama." This is why Obama has appeal with independent voters. It gives American suburbia concerned about the family unit another option on the ballot. What's a perceived Democratic/liberal value or goal that Republicans can steal? Maybe that will be my next blog post.

But when talking about choice and competition in education, McCain then goes back to the concept that money by itself does not solve problems. $25K per pupil in DC public schools, and yet one of the poorest performance records in the nation ... so what do to? Vouchers. It's too bad that McCain is not registering this message with uncommitted voters on the CNN dial.

I truly think McCain needs to go back to the beginning of this debate as a theme for the rest of this campaign: let's not have a domestic and economic policy that divides this country. Let's have policies that unite this country under one umbrella of equal opportunity, not equality of condition.

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

*10:18 PM EST*

Another friend on Twitter says: "I want whatever stuff McCain is on. Seriously."

They've swtiched back on the abortion question: Obama is on the defensive, trying to explain his pro-choice position. What does McCain do? Attack Obama's record in the Illinois State Senate on this issue. Check out http://BornAliveTruth.org.

I really wish someone would merge the pro-life and Giuliani positions: Roe v. Wade is terrible, abortion is a tragedy ... but, as long as Roe v. Wade is the law, we should encourage less abortions and more adoptions. Obama is taking this middle-of-the-road position, and he's spiking with both men and women on CNN's dials.

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

*10:00 PM EST*

WOW! McCain: "You're against a free trade agreement with Columbia, one of our strongest allies in the region. Yet, you want to meet with Hugo Chavez without precondition."

Amazing, just amazing! Meanwhile, we should ask Joe Biden the same thing: he voted for a free trade agreement with China and against a free trade agreement with Singapore. In fact, he voted for every free trade agreement under the Clinton administration, and against every FTA in the Bush administration. Question to Senators Obama and Biden: what makes China more deserving of free trade relations with us than Singapore?

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

*9:55 PM EST*

Double BINGO for McCain ...

1. On the subject of spending, Obama responded to McCain's description of Palin by praising Palin and then saying that to deal with things like autism, more money needs to be spent. What does McCain ask? Exactly the right question: why is it always about more spending? Money doesn't solve all the world's problems .... transparency, accountability and reform get a lot further than money. Another theme for McCain to use!

2. "How much will you reduce American's dependence on foreign oil?" McCain has just successfully merged of foreign, economic, and energy policy. Talking about Obama's insistence on negotiating with our enemies without precondition while talking about the dangers of foreign dependence to our national security and economy. The zinger? McCain separates the rhetoric of Obama with the intentions of Obama on offshore drilling: "we shouldn't be 'looking at' drilling ... we can drill here and drill now."

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

*9:46 PM EST*

"Why would your running mate be better than your opponent's as president?"

The CNN dials on John McCain's answer on Sarah Palin are significantly higher that those for Obama's answer on Joe Biden. Why? Joe Biden and Barack Obama have nothing in common ... Sarah Palin and John McCain have everything in common ... what's the theme? Yes ... it's the courage to reform.

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

*9:41 PM EST*

Soren says on Twitter: "Where has this McCain been? This is awesome."

This is fantastic. McCain has successfully wasted 2 minutes of Obama's time talking about ACORN and Bill Ayers.

Obama didn't condemn John Lewis' comments, nor did he condemn ACORN's practices. More fodder for the fire!

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

*9:25 PM EST*

McCain: "If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should've run four years ago."

HURRAH! The next step for McCain should be the theme of "The Courage to Reform" ... start making ads telling stories about how McCain has stood up to his own party and stood up against what was popular at the time, in order to put his country first. So many ways to combine stories, themes, and past message points that can work for him.

McCain: "I have a long record of reform. Senator Obama, you have no record of standing up for anything."

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

*9:17 PM EST*

McCain: "You told Joe the Plumber that you want to spread the wealth around. So Joe gives you his money, and you spread it around."

BINGO! B-I-N-G-O!!! Class warfare is bad. For the next 2.5 weeks, McCain needs to use this and say what he said exactly just now: that during a time of economic turmoil, during a time where we need to help both individuals and businesses, that we shouldn't be raising anybody's taxes, we shouldn't play favorites, we shouldn't pick winners and losers. Barack Obama's promise to unite is being unraveled by his policy goals that increase class warfare. This might, just might, be the type of response McCain can have to this whole Obama-Biden "fairness"/socialist argument.

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

*9:09 PM EST*

"Why is your economic plan better than your opponent's plan?"

I'm not even paying attention to both candidates' bloviating answers. Obama and McCain seemed to have switched the positions they were in at Saddleback: Obama is the one looking at the camera with confidence talking to the American people, while McCain is the one being defensive only looking at Bob Schieffer. Not good ... hopefully things will change once they open up the format to back and forth questions.

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

*8:58 PM EST*

Apologies for the two week hiatus in blogging. It's been busy at work.

So, should I watch the debate or the NLCS? The fact is that the chances of the Dodgers, or the Red Sox (my beloved team), coming back to win their respective series is about the same as John McCain's chances of winning this election.

For the past couple weeks, I've had some difficulty in reacting and reflecting back on the events that have happened: the financial and credit crises, McCain's campaign suspension (but not really), both candidates flailing around to come up with "a plan," Obama's surge in battleground states and the electoral college, etc.

Two things grabbed my attention. First, Obama, the unions, and other liberal groups have been attacking the McCain health insurance tax credit plan as a "tax on your health insurance" when in fact McCain would replace the current employer-based health insurance tax exclusion that favors rich folks with a $2,500 individual tax credit ($5,000 for couples) that could insure up to a third of those currently uninsured and would overwhemingly help those in low- to moderate-income brackets, a net tax cut for most Americans. But Obama has effectively convinced Americans that this proposal is bad, and did something I thought no Democrat could do to a Republican: saying that "we can't afford John McCain" in an ad attacking his tax plan. Have we come to the point where a Democrat is telling voters that we can't afford Republicans? This shows that McCain's ability to communicate his proposals has been terrible in the short term, and the old conservative movement is in shambles in the long term.

Second, Obama is starting to do what McCain did at the Saddleback Forum: telling stories. From the ad about his mother dying of cancer to segway into a message about health care to another ad about how his grandfather was a war pilot and his grandmother worked on a bomber assembly line, Obama is taking a page out of McCain's book and connecting with the American people through stories. And it's working.

On that note, here are a few things McCain needs to do tonight:

• Continue to tell the stories like the ones he told at Saddleback.
• While comparing himself to Obama, also compare the rhetoric of Celebrity Obama to the shifting of Professor Obama.
• Ask serious questions of Obama on Fannie, Freddie, ACORN, Ayers, and Rezco.
• Find a theme: the first presidential debate was centered around the theme of "responsibility" for McCain. I would like to see a theme based on the "Courage to Reform," asking the American people to take a close look at the record: McCain's political courage vs. Obama's political opportunism.

Here we go!

*10:41 PM EST, 9:41 PM at WashU in STL*

Palin: "I can relate to the problems of the middle class." She did a good job with repeating this, but she should be more specific on the campaign trail after this debate. She should do what McCain did at the Saddleback Forum: tell stories.

Like I predicted 90 minutes ago: debate = draw. No game-changers.

Three things the McCain campaign needs to do with Sarah Palin:

1. Go further on the energy issue. Start merging energy policy with foreign, national security, and economic policy. McCain should say that Sarah Palin would chair a special National Security Council subcommittee focusing on energy policy.
2. Experiment: get Palin to speak directly to Libertarians and see if we can fire them up for election day.
3. Palin message on electronic media: time to look forward, not backward on the policies of the Bush administration.

Congratulations to both VP candidates for pretty solid performances in their areas of expertise.

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

*10:26 PM EST, 9:26 PM at WashU in STL*

Wow! Joe Biden gives a great emotional answer after he explains that he won't change his ways. He explains that while he is more fortunate than most Americans, that he can connect with those in middle America. He's taking Palin on on Palin's court. I don't know if that's good or bad for us. Debate lesson #2: use stories to connect with voters. Palin is describing her experience as a working mom in many questions and using it to her advantage, but the story from Biden was powerful.

But Palin is staying on message: The Courage to Reform. Joe Biden is fighting the McCain = maverick message head on ... again I don't know if that's good or bad for us.

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

*10:20 PM EST, 9:20 PM at WashU in STL*

VP discussion ... BORING!

Talk more about education ... education (i.e. choice, accountability, throwing money at a problem doesn't solve) needs to be a cornerstone for the next conservative movement. It's a good way to talk about the principle of equal opportunity vs. the principle of equality in condition.

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

*10:13 PM EST, 9:13 PM at WashU in STL*

Both Biden and Palin give good answers to the "heartbeat away" question. Biden uses it as an opportunity to keep it simple and talk about principles and policies of an Obama-Biden administration. Palin gives even a better answer: "it's ok to disagree ... you should expect that from a team of mavericks."

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

*10:03 PM EST, 9:03 PM at WashU in STL*

Next ad for the McCain campaign should be ... Palin on the Dem ticket: "Enough is enough with your ticket looking back and playing the blame game." Really the only way for McCain to take this "Bush-McCain connection" attack head on is:

1. I am not George Bush. (Put forth at the convention.)
2. Change is coming. (Put forth after the Palin pick.)
3. Stop talking about the past and start talking about the future. (Needs to be done NOW!)

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

*9:52 PM EST, 8:52 PM at WashU in STL*

Iraq ... blah blah blah. Pakistan, Iran, Israel ... blah blah blah. And the uncommitted voters on the CNN dial agree.

Palin should ask Biden why he supported the tri-partioning of Iraq.

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

*9:41 PM EST, 8:41 PM at WashU in STL*

You can really tell from his body expressions that Joe Biden is holding back from going on a full-blast attack on Palin, the type of full-blast attack he went on during the primary.

No kidding: this debate is sort of boring.

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

*9:31 PM EST, 8:31 PM at WashU in STL*

FINALLY! Sarah Palin exposes the hypocrisy of Barack Obama on energy. Obama voted for the Bush energy bill in 2005, while Biden and McCain voted against it. See question #3 in my last post: 5 questions Palin should ask Biden.

Tomorrow, I'm going to do a fact check on the McCain health care plan. I can't stand all of the Obama-Biden campaign's misleading claims on McCain's health insurance tax credit.

Biden on bankruptcy bill vote: "I saw the glass as half-empty, Barack saw it as half-full." What does that mean? If there was an opportunity in the United States Senate, would both of you have voted "present"?

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

*9:24 PM EST, 8:24 PM at WashU in STL*

Biden is giving another good answer, this time on taxes: focusing on the principle of "fairness." Biden is taking a page from McCain in the first Presidential debate: focusing on short and simple principles. Now, while we as conservatives don't agree with this redistributionist philosophy, the "debate lesson" here is: keep it simple and and stick to principles.

Palin is struggling with keeping to a simple principle on her answers so far, but she did receive a nice spike with men on CNN's response dial when she mentioned that government isn't always the solution to every problem. The McCain campaign might want to do some more targeting research into using Palin for a libertarian constituency GOTV effort.

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

*9:13 PM EST, 8:13 PM at WashU in STL*

Biden is giving a pretty good answer on the bailout by once again focusing on the "failed Bush economic policies." He's really spiking with women on the "Uncommitted Ohio Voters" dial on CNN!

I'm glad Palin is being the "validator" ... mentioning McCain's record of calling for reform of Freddie and Fannie.

Palin's answer to Biden's question on McCain's "fundamentals of the economy" quote is fantastic! "The fundamentals of our economy is based on the the American workforce."

WOW!!! Another great answer to Gwen's question on who is to blame when it comes to the subprime mortgage crisis. Predatory lenders ... never again should the American people be victimized by greed and corruption. Her answer is getting three times the positive reaction Biden's response is getting on the uncommitted voter dial.

Palin is heading in the right direction ... reform in the right way. Biden is heading in the wrong direction ... defending Obama.

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

*9:00 PM EST, 8:00 PM at WashU in STL*

Panel on CNN is debating this question: "How consequential will this debate be?"

Well, according to Patrick earlier today, Palin's stumbles with Gibson and Couric didn't make any hay in the polls.

I'm predicting a draw.

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

*8:52 PM EST, 7:52 PM at WashU in STL*

Like the last debate, I have sequestered myself from watching any of the cable news networks today to avoid getting the usual talking heads into my head. Right now, the tube is on TBS ... Phillies lead 5-2, middle of the 8th.

I'm not going to lie: I'm half worried and half excited. So is the glass half empty or half full?

One thing is certain: Gov. Palin needs to go back to the person who can connect with the experiences and feelings of blue collar, suburban/exurban America to shore up southern Virginia, suburban Colorado, rural Michigan and Minnesota, and most of Ohio and Pennsylvania.

The theme for her tonight should be "The Courage to Reform." The McCain-Palin ticket has a record of calling for and executing reform, even when it was unpopular. She should ask Biden to name one instance where Obama has fought against the wind on a critical issue.

I give credit to both the Obama and McCain campaigns for accepting a much more open debate format where an actual debate can happen. As the Commission on Presidential Debates puts it:

"The moderator will introduce each segment with an issue on which each candidate will comment, after which the moderator will facilitate further discussion of the issue, including direct exchange between the candidates, for the balance of that segment ...

"Our mission is to promote voter education. The public deserves to hear and see the candidates offer and defend their positions on the critical issues facing our country in the most thoughtful and in-depth manner that television time constraints will allow. Loosening the constraints within the ninety minutes debate will allow for more serious examination of complicated questions. This change will also open the possibility of the moderator inviting candidates to question each other."

I wish that John McCain asked more questions of Barack Obama last Friday to put the senior Senator from Illinois even more on the defensive. I hope it gets more lively in the two other debates. Jon is right that Sarah Palin "must define herself or be defined," but she can definitely help herself by asking Joe Biden the following questions:

1. The centerpiece of your Iraq policy during your Presidential campaign was the partition of Iraq into three autonomous federal regions: the Kurdish North, the Sunni Center, and the Shiite South. Do you and your running mate still think this "cut and divide" policy is the smart thing to do?
2. You voted for NAFTA in 1993, the Africa free trade bill in 1999, and the U.S.-China Trade Relations Act, which normalized trade relations with China in 2000. But you voted against the creation of free trade agreements with Singapore and Chile in 2003, with Central America in 2005, and with Oman in 2006. What makes China more deserving of free trade relations with the United States than Singapore? Furthermore, why have you flip flopped on trade?
3. You and John McCain voted against the Bush energy bill in 2005, while your running mate voted for it. Don't you think it's hypocritical of Barack Obama to attack John McCain over "giveaways" to oil companies when Sen. Obama voted for such a "giveaway" himself?
4. You said you opposed the federal bailout of AIG this month in an interview with the Today show. Soon after, you backed off of that position, telling voters in Ohio that you had not yet been briefed on AIG. Why did you change your mind? Don't you think it's dangerous for someone who wants to be in an executive position to flip flop on very important matters like our financial crisis?
5. Although we like to attack corporate loopholes in the tax code, the Treasury Department and the Congressional Budget Office say that housing industry receives more tax breaks than any other industry, part of the cause of the current financial crisis. Most tax experts say we've got to pull back some of those subsidies so that people only buy a house when they can afford it. Senator Obama's plan actually piles on more tax benefits for housing. Why are the experts wrong?

As my friend from Alaska who's an operative said on the phone today:

"I hope her interview performances are some sort of ploy to drive expectations to the ground, and then hit back with an amazing performance at the debate tomorrow."

As Jon explains, she still needs to be the "validator" for McCain ... talking about energy as it relates to foreign and economic policy, ethics, and a reform agenda ... an agenda that McCain and Palin both have a record of courage to take head on.

First, I'm happy to see that my first instincts were the same as the McCain campaign's first instincts about last night's debate:

When I was working in Alaska, I volunteered as a debate coach at a local high school. (And just to brag, we won the state debate championship and sent four people to the national tournament.) I taught my students that in any debate of any format, great substance always has to come before great style. Great style should never make bad substance good, but it can greatly enhance good substance.

Much of the MSM and the blogosphere, especially the fact-checkers, have saturated us with important information. Right now, though, I'll share with you some of the things I taught my students back in Alaska, and using those principles, show you why McCain wins the style competition over Obama.

*10:39 PM EST, 9:39 PM at Ole Miss*

Brewers lead 5-1, bottom of the 7th, 1 out.

John McCain 1, Barack Obama 0

It's been a long day and I'm tired. I'm going to watch baseball, go to sleep, and write my overall response tomorrow morning.

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

*10:36 PM EST, 9:36 PM at Ole Miss*

Obama: "I give Senator McCain great credit on the torture issue." Yes, Barack. Please give us more lines for ads.

By now two things are clear. First, Obama has not changed his debate style at all. Second: with McCain mentioning his agreement with Joe Lieberman to create the 9/11 commission, against the wishes of the Bush administration, he is solidifying his maverick and independent streak.

Summary: McCain is running against Bush. Obama is running against himself. The following is from a liberal Obama supporter friend on Facebook:

"I think our boy is getting beat :( "

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

*10:29 PM EST, 9:29 PM at Ole Miss*

Ack! My wireless connection went out for a few minutes.

We're on Russia and Georgia now. Professor Obama gives his 2 minute lecture on the ideal relationship with Russia. What does Commander-in-Chief McCain do? Right off the bat, he nails Obama for his weak, naive initial response to Russian invasion of Georgia. Obama = academics. McCain = defining the differences.

While McCain introduces the world to the possibility of the significant role of Ukraine, showing off his international knowledge, Obama is back on the defensive, trying to explain his initial response to the Georiga crisis.

Wow! Is Obama now for offshore drilling, clean coal, and nuclear power? Not only is he agreeing with McCain's "all of the above" energy strategy. The extremist environmenalist crowd must be going nuts.

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

*10:19 PM EST, 9:19 PM at Ole Miss*

Obama: "Senator McCain is absoluetly right. We cannot tolerate a nuclear Iran." Another line for the McCain campaign's next ad

McCain is absolutely killing Obama on meeting with Iran without precondition. McCain gives a great hypothetical of an Obama meeting with Ahmadinejad: we go over there ... he says they want to wipe Israel off the face of the earth ... and we say "no you won't?"

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

*9:59 PM EST, 8:59 PM at Ole Miss*

Professor Obama has returned! Senator Obama, what would you do in Afghanistan? First, blah blah blah. Second, blah blah blah. Third, blah blah blah.

Lesson #3 for candidates: with every answer, take the chance to define the differences between you and your opponent. Obama isn't doing that. McCain is.

But here's a very important, and very well-put critique of both candidates that my friend posted on Facebook:

"When McCain talks about past, he has specific examples. When Obama talks about future, there necessarily are none. Both need opposites."

(Cubs and Brewers tied 1-1, top of the 6th, no outs.)

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

*9:51 PM EST, 8:51 PM at Ole Miss*

We're on Iraq now. Why is Obama mentioning that his running mate is the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee? In order to defend himself for not going to Iraq until this past summer? Why is Obama talking about Senate "inside baseball" and then admitting it's "inside baseball"?

Obama is getting some good hits with independents on various Iraq and Afghanistan votes and issues ... but then comes McCain on the surge:

"I'm afraid that Senator Obama doesn't know the difference between a tactic and a strategy."

LOL!!! The same can be said of Obama's campaign!

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

*9:38 PM EST, 8:38 PM at Ole Miss*

Great set of questions from Jim Lehrer: Because of the amount of the bailout, what will you have to give up in terms of spending? Obama isn't even answering the question, talking about investing in energy. How does that even come close to answering the question? McCain is talking about cutting wasteful spending, getting rid of things like ethanol subsidies, and getting cost runs under control (even in defense spending).

Lesson #2 to candidates: Unless you can contest the premise of a question you don't like, answer the question!

Obama started to talk about Iraq as a big money waster, that gave him a good bump in the CNN dial. Which reminds me ... are we going to talk about foreign policy at all tonight?

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

*9:22 PM EST, 8:22 PM at Ole Miss*

Obama: "McCain is right about responsibility. McCain is right on earmark abuse. McCain is right on out of control spending. But ..."

The McCain campaign better create an ad based on every time Obama says that McCain is right.

McCain's tax plan, especially his health insurance credit ($2.5K for individuals, $5K for couples) just got a huge spike in CNN's dial among all groups.

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

*9:13 PM EST, 8:13 PM at Ole Miss*

CNN has an "Audience Reaction" dial at the bottom of the screen ... cool!

Obama gives what seems to be a forced answer on the bailout question, and then finishes with the usual line of "failed Bush policies." McCain has successfully merged the pessimism of Main Street Americans with the optimism of the bipartisanship that has been the keynote of this week.

The discussion continues: Obama = laundry list of what I'll do, fix, etc. McCain = responsibility, responsibility, responsibility. The independent voters' dial on the audience reaction box just spiked when McCain mentioned that mantra.

Lesson to candidates: use principles, not timelines and laundry lists, when debating your opponents

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

*9:00 PM EST, 8:00 PM at Ole Miss*

Bill Bennett on CNN says this will be the "ultimate test of character" for the candidates. True: for independent swing voters, the way they communicate and interact with the American people will be just as important as the substance. If status quo holds, Obama will try to have a conversation with McCain and the moderator; McCain will have a conversation with voters. See my previous post on the Saddleback Forum.

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

*8:50 PM EST, 7:50 PM at Ole Miss*

Today, I decided to insulate myself from the same talking heads and surrogates I usually watch at work on Fox, CNN and MSDNC ... err MSNBC ... and lock the TV on CNBC. I did this for two reasons: (1) to watch economists, bankers, etc. yell about the bailout package, and (2) have a clear head so I can analyze the debate for what it is without any "outside influence." (Right now, I'm at home watching the Cubs and Brewers on ESPN ... bottom of the 2nd, 2 outs, tied at 1-1.)

Here are the questions that I want to hopefully answer tonight:

• The McCain campaign has done a good job of showing "why not Obama." Will he start to develop the answer to the question of "why him?"
• Will the senior senator from Illinois show any significant stylistic differences from his primary debates? Or will he continue to be Professor Obama?
• Can McCain successfully merge foreign and economic policy?
• What specifics will Obama provide, not only on the Middle East and issues of war and peace, but on China's economic growth, Russian aggression, America's ability to compete in the global marketplace, trade, etc.? (Assuming, of course, those questions are asked.)

Game on!