McCain is Desperate

Senator John McCain has decided to make the central thesis in his case for President reflect his unflagging support for the Iraq War, and to reassert that the war is essential to our security. Not only does such a move appear to be desperate, but it is linking him closely with the man that he has tried to distance himself from for 6 years.

His thinking is that the money that his campaign needs must come from former Bush financiers, so if he supports Bush on Iraq while others are dodging the issue, then Bush apologists will show their appreciation in the form of campaign contributions during the second quarter of 2007. McCain thinks that he can peel away supporters of Guiliani by showing himself to be a more legitimate hawk, and that he will be able to raise enough money to appear to be gaining momentum rather than losing it in three months.

Here is a snippet from the news article that I am referring to:

By Michael D. Shear
Washington Post Staff Writer
Saturday, April 7, 2007;

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) will launch a high-profile effort next
week to convince Americans that the Iraq war is winnable, embracing the
unpopular conflict with renewed vigor as he attempts to reignite his stalling
bid for the presidency.
With the Virginia Military Institute as a backdrop,
McCain plans to argue in a speech on Wednesday that victory in Iraq is essential
to American security and that President Bush's war machine is finally getting on
track after four years, aides and advisers said.
...It is a gamble at a
critical time for the former front-runner for the Republican nomination, the
political equivalent of a "double-down" in blackjack, as one person close to the
campaign put it. A candidate once seen as the almost inevitable winner, McCain
is struggling in the polls and this week placed dead last in fundraising among
the three top Republican and three top Democratic contenders.

McCain has very little support among the Christian Right of the Republican Party, and he has been in politics for way too long to make a convincing sudden about-face on a lot of issues. If I were him, this is what I would do:

1. Make a speech admitting that I made a mistake in advancing the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. I would say that I wanted to decrease the influence of money in politics, but that the unintended consequence was to simply empower insiders while hurting grassroots organizations. I would then lay out a sweeping campaign finance reform plan that would right the wrongs of my previous act while preserving the "spirit and intent" of McCain-Feingold. This, more than almost anything else, is what causes Right-wing groups to hate McCain.
2. Seek speaking opportunities at conservative mega-churches, and give speeches dealing with the importance of the "family unit". My website would more prominently display my 83% rating by the Christian Coalition which represents a pro-family voting record. (Dec 2003).
3. In my stump speeches, I would advocate a spending freeze, a flat tax that preserves mortgage and education deductions, and the elimination of income taxes on all income under $40,000. I would consistently use references to Ronald Reagan.

Romney Doesn't Get Taxes

You may remember that 1996 Republican candidate Steve Forbes championed the idea of a flat tax. Also, you may be aware that a major overhaul of the tax system has been languishing in Congress for half a decade or more, going absolutely nowhere despite the fact that there was a Republican House, Senate, President, and a conservative Supreme Court.

Anyway, while campaigning in Iowa, Mitt Romney said he opposes implementing a flat income tax because the concept is "unfair". He was asked about it because Rudy Giuliani indicated last week that he would consider a flat tax.

Romney seems to be unaware of the fact that 10% of $ 1,000 is $100, but 10% of $ 1,000,000 is $ 100,000. So, someone earning a million dollars would pay 1,000 times more money in taxes than someone earning $ 1,000. I don't understand where the fairness of that can be called into question.

It takes a real stretch of the human imagination to slap the label "regressive tax" on the flat tax. But, just for argument's sake, let's say that there is a real concern about the level of taxes paid by people at the lowest end of the income ladder. Then Congress could simply raise the income exemption level so that even more people who are " working poor" pay zero taxes. How can zero taxes for the poor be called unfair?

For a good overview of the Flat Tax, check out this article on Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax
(Personally, I favor Milton Friedman's Negative Income Tax--read the whole article @ Wikipedia)

Dobson's Foolish Comments

Dr. James Dobson has done some commendable work in the past, and I believe that he is a well-meaning individual who is passionate about his country and principles. Having said that, he misspoke terribly recently, and left himself wide open to the accusation that he is a shill for the Newt Gingrich campaign. Consider:

1. Gingrich does a public confessional on Dobson's radio show.
2. Gingrich is trying to position himself as the only conservative option in the Republican primary so far.
3. Fred Thompson is well liked in the conservative wing of the Republican Party.
4. Fred Thompson's associates begin floating his name in the media as a potential candidate.
5. Polls come out showing that Fred Thompson's potential candidacy hurts Gingrich more than other candidates.
6. Within days, Dobson calls a reporter of a secular news outlet that he hasn't talked to in years, and then makes the odd statement that he "doesn't think Thompson is a Christian".
7. Dobson also makes complimentary statements about Gingrich in the same conversation.

It would be very easy for someone to infer the following:

• Dobson is working at the behest of--and following orders from--the Gingrich campaign. Only Gingrich would have wanted someone like Dobson to immediately try to preempt Thompson's momentum.
• Dobson is willing to make personal judgements (in public) about the salvation of another human being purely for political motives. That is very alarming, and Dobson should be very careful.

What is worse, when called by another reporter about his comments, Dr. Dobson's spokesman said that Dobson was "just reading the tea leaves" of the campaign.

Instead, Dr. Dobson should have said something like this: "My interactions with Senator Thompson, and his legislative record, are insufficient to convince me that he shares my principles and convictions. Of course, it would be inappropriate for me to set myself up as the Senator's judge. Hopefully, I will have the opportunity in the future for the Senator to convince me that his values are the same as my own."

Such a statement would have sent the message that Dr. Dobson meant to send (which I disagree with strongly, by the way), but it would have avoided the political and spiritual pitfalls that he fell into.

Obama's Q1 Finances

Senator Barack Obama has done a masterful job so far of out-maneuvering Senator Hillary Clinton. The way that he handled the timing of reporting the first quarter finances of his campaign was deft, even though it was a fairly simple and straight-forward tactic.

Obama wanted a news cycle dedicated to the story as he wanted to spin it. So, he waited until the buzz has died down about Hillary raising more money than everyone, found out the details of how much of Clinton's money is for the primary versus general election, and then he finally releases the news that he raised more money for the primaries than Hillary did, and that more of his money was from smaller donors that are less likely to be maxed out than Hillary's donors are. In short, Obama took a page out of Bill Clinton's playbook, and he used it expertly against Hillary Clinton.