McCain's debate performance Tuesday night was not impressive. Actually, it was terrible. I'd like to mention a few areas for him to improve upon for the next debate and the last few weeks of the campaign.
McCain's ulitmate goal in these debates should have been to try to increase Obama's negatives. I thought he was heading in that direction with the William Ayers attacks being thrown out there by Palin and himself in the beginning of the week. Unfortunately, little of these attempts during the debate were strong enough to stick.
First, McCain has been losing on the "economic issue" since the crisis first hit Wall Street. The worse it gets, the lower his poll numbers go. And although Obama has no solution to the problem and is certainly not experienced in the area enough to make him the right choice to help America out of this temporary problem, McCain's gains from the convention to the first debate have now evaporated due to this issue. To turn the tide in this area, McCain should be tying Obama to the economic problem. Obama has been able to effectively tie the crisis to Bush and then Bush to McCain, giving him across the board gains.
In the first set of questions about the economic crisis, McCain said, "But you know, they're the ones that, with the encouragement of Sen. Obama and his cronies and his friends in Washington, that went out and made all these risky loans, gave them to people that could never afford to pay back...Meanwhile, they were getting all kinds of money in campaign contributions. Sen Obama was the second highest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac money in history."
Good line, but it lacks the details that would have made it truly effective. Going forward McCain must "name, names" and give financial details to make this claim more personal.
Take for example, Franklin Raines, former Chairman and CEO of Fannie Mae. He made $90 million in salary and bonuses from the failed mortgage institution and talked to people from the campaign on financial issues. Obama recieved more than $100,000 in campaign contributions from the same institution. When the issue of CEOs getting tax breaks from McCain's tax plan comes up again, like it did the other night, McCain should directly ask Obama if his friend, advisor and big campaign bundler, Franklin Raines, will give back the bonus money he recieved from manipulaing the mortgage market. Sen. Obama's friend, CEO Raines, "made millions off of the backs of hardworking Americans through irresponsible, predatory lending tactics." That type of statement will personally tie Obama to the crisis.
As well, former CEO of Lehman Brothers, Richard Fuld, gave $2,400 to Obama's campaign and was attacked last week by Congressman Waxman's Committee for refusing to give back some of the $400 million he made while leading the famous financial institution into bankruptcy. James Johnson was selected to advise Obama on his VP selection. He recieved more than $7 million in sweet-heart deals from failed mortgage entity Countrywide Financial.
McCain needs to name names and use financial details to make Obama seem as much a part of the problem as he and his fellow liberals truly are. It's his only way to deflect the "he's with Bush" political angle Obama has taken in politically dealing with this crisis.
Second, McCain needs to capitalize on the energy issue better than he has to date. Dealing with this issue properly will enable McCain to drive up Obama's negatives.
Obama admitted he has no plan for energy independence when he said, "And we can do it. Now, when JFK said we're going to the Moon in 10 years, nobody was sure how to do it, but we understood that, if the American people make a decision to do something, it gets done. So that would be priority number one."
McCain should have capitalized on that statement, but he didn't. Obama went on to say, "There is going to be the need for each and every one of us to start thinking about how we use energy."
Those statements need to be compared to President Carter's infamous "malaise speech," which outlined "import quotas, rationing and the development of new technologies to reduce our dependance on foreign oil" at a time of energy and economic crisis. Obama, like Carter, refuses to embrace drilling for oil or extracting natural gas from American sources, as well as the widespread use of nuclear power. Carter finished his energy discussion with "these efforts will cost money, a lot of money, and that is why Congress must enact the windfall profits tax without delay. It will be money well spent." Obama supports the same.
How much of a better comparison does one need? Carter is the poster-child of the results of inexperience and indecisiveness in in the White House. Obama is exactly the same as Carter on this issue, and others, and the best way to drive up Obama's negatives is to compare him to one of the least respected Presidents in history. Honestly, Carter was 10 times more qualified to be President than Obama, on paper, and making such a strong comparison may make voters questions Obama's readiness to become our nation's leader.
McCain could also draw comparisons about the use of Nuclear Energy, which many feel is the only legitimate long-term solution to getting America free from "middle-eastern oil." But McCain blew that angle when he said, "The Japanese, the British, the French do it. And we can do it, too."
Why make comparisons to foreign countries when America already gets more than 20% of it's electric power from Nuclear energy today? Why not talk about the success stories of American nuclear power. Cite cities in the US, not foreign countries. "Name names," again.
Lastly for McCain to turn the tide in this election, he needs to speak in a more clear fashion. He tends to ramble about solutions in a laundry list fashion that is not only confusing, but does not make voters see a clear vision for what he will do as President. This is what Obama does that is working so well - even if it means that he is effectively "short on details." The way to show Obama to be as vapid as he is, is for McCain to offer as clear a vision for the future as his opponent does - one that is just detailed enough to demonstrate the lack of detail his opponent possesses.
When you read through the text of the debate from the other night, McCain threw everything "but the kitchen sink" into the end of each answer he gave. Speak slowly. Speak clearly. And speak with conviction. All things his staff is responsible to prepare him to do and all things i've personally seen him do more than a 100 times on the Senate floor.
McCain's effort may already be lost with the polls showing him more than 10 points down and losing in most of the critical swing states. The Senator from Arizona needs a knockout punch right now. I hope he adds some of the above to his arsenal and makes this a race over the next few weeks and focuses on driving up Obama's negatives in an unyielding manner...
TrackBack URI for this entry
Subscribe to this comment's feed
written by alice Lemos , October 10, 2008
Gallup poll. McCain needs to get angry. He could start by going after Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Dingy Harry Reid and Mommy Pelosi. He could ask, COULD YOU STAND THIS CREW RUNNING THE COUNTRY WITHOUT CHECKS OR BALANCES? What kind of judges with Barry Hussein Obama name? He needs to feel the rage of the people who are getting hammered by the markets. He needs to say, I WILL CLEAN THIS UP AND I WILL GO AFTER THESE PEOPLE including ACORN. In fact, he should insist they be indicted under the RICO statute.
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , October 10, 2008
When he gets mad he sounds shrill, harsh and mean. That sends the wrong message. He needs to be more thoughtful, calmer and more focused on his own vision, while poking good natured fun at Obama at best. Anger may satisfy partisans but Republican and conservative partisans are already on his side. He needs to appeal to the folks in the middle, the folks who often think a pox on both political houses. He needs to learn to settle down and communicate with a little more finesse. Otherwise, his message will be lost in the counter anger as it undermines his own claim to be a better kind of politician. -- SWM
written by Reaganite , October 10, 2008
You are all wrong. McCain needs more passion, not finesse or anger, but passion. He needs to connect with people on a more personal level.
It is correct that the Gallup poll, the only one with Obama up by such a big lead, is way out of wack. Most of the polls now are between 3 and 6 points. Not a large deficit to overcome at all, and probably really a tie consider the sampling methods being used (significantly more dems than reps in the datasets).
McCain just needs to focus on showing Obama for the fraud and empty suit he really is, and use all his dubious connections to illustrate how Obama is the one who represents more of the same old failed liberal policies.
written by Jay Golub , October 10, 2008
http://www.realclearpolitics.c...e-643.html
"He could start by going after Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, Dingy Harry Reid and Mommy Pelosi. He could ask, COULD YOU STAND THIS CREW RUNNING THE COUNTRY WITHOUT CHECKS OR BALANCES?"
Sorry, Alibaba, but he's running against Obama, not any of these folk. If he wanted to do the strategy you prescribe, he'd first need to attach Obama to them. That is what i'm calling for, and it's not an "attack." It's pointing out something that is factual.
"Anger may satisfy partisans but Republican and conservative partisans are already on his side."
I don't know whether or not you are saying i think McCain should get angry and show anger in his debate strategy, but i'm not. There's a difference between making firm, but accurate points about your opponent - especially when your opponent is standing on top of the Mount Olympus of integrity.
Campaign 101 dictates that a candidate with low negatives will always win. Obama is at 35%. McCain is at 42 - 43%. No candidate can win a national election and, especially, garner the number of independant voters that McCain needs to win this election.
McCain's endgame strategy needs to be critical of Obama - his record and the record of those who support him most...
written by Stuart W. Mirsky , October 10, 2008
It makes us feel good when our candidate gives 'em hell and, truthfully, some candidates can pull it off with aplomb. McCain can't. He gets shrill and verges on the incoherent when he gets angry. His awkward physical presence (because of his rough time in Hanoi and his age), make him look perpetually ill at ease. He has to work with his deficits and turn them into strengths. Be clear, concise, crisp and frank. But don't get into complex explanations which he can't pull off anyway and don't snicker and snarl at his opponent. Obama comes off as way more polished and poised and that only makes McCain look worse every time he blows his cool.
I think, in fact, that the Dems desperately want McCain to blow his cool and egg him on. When he does, he hands them what they want.
Right now McCain is surviving but just barely on my view. He has to turn this around and he can't do it by outspeaking Obama or snarling at him. He has to do it in a positive way to win over the undecideds. He's already got us and making us feel better by hammering away at Obama and the Dems gets him very little while losing him a great deal!
SWM
written by Jay Golub , October 11, 2008
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...0043.story
McCain is getting boo-ed by his own supporters.
I agree that McCain should not let people, even supporters, make disrespectful claims, but McCain needs to tap into this type of energy. It can be done by pointing out facts that contradict what Sen. Obama is saying on the campaign trail and in the debates. It shows him to be disingenuous - and borderline dishonest.
If McCain wants to win, the gloves must come off - as he implied before the debate the other night.
I still think he has them on, and his supporters are starting to feel a similar frustration, it seems...
written by Jay Golub , October 12, 2008
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10...133269.htm
This is a well written editorial, but it's premise is wrong. McCain's isn't losing because he's not "conservative enough" or that the "conservatives knew this would happen." He's losing because he's running a terrible campaign
From his selection of Palin to his recent snoozer of a debate performance the other night to his inability to provide political clarity, when that is all most Americans are looking for, McCain has made mistake after mistake.
I would blame his campaign staff, but this has been a recurring theme - starting with his loss to a goofy, simple talking Governor from Texas to his near campaign implosion this Primary season.
McCain is clearly qualified and he clearly is a leader that brings about change. How could he be "losin' to this guy?"
I guess the only conclusion is that McCain just stinks at the "campaigning" thing. Not such a good thing for a person running for the Presidency, huh?...
written by Jay Golub , October 13, 2008
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10...133424.htm
Obama's support grows, but it's soft. increasing Obama's negatives could turn the polls more than 5 points across the board, and could help McCain win some of these swing states.
The selection of Palin may help with some voters, but the sentiment expressed here, and in my informal polls that i've been taking with people i talk to, leads me to believe Palin's a liability overall...
written by Jay Golub , October 13, 2008
http://www.nypost.com/seven/10...133369.htm
McCain being 10 points down in PA, losing Florida and now on the verge of losing Ohio, is about to fall off the political cliff.
Wedsnesday night must be a knockout for him if he wants to be the next President of the United States...
written by alice Lemos , October 14, 2008
it all wrong. McCain is going to do what he is going to do and I suspect that, on some level, he does not want to be president now because whoever wins will eventually regret it! However, he might try pointing out that, if the Demos increase their majorities in congress, Mommy Nancy and Dingy Harry Reid will do whatever they please to ruin our country and that Obama is a socialist with ties to terrorist sympathizers. Imagine the Obama cabinet: Jean Francois Kerry as Secretary of State; Barney Frank in charge of HUD; Cynthia McKinney running the Justice Department. He had better get out the message that Obama and his supporters are dangerous. Yes, we do have a lot to fear from an Obama presidency. Pennsylvania was always going to be a difficult state to win. However, he must hold Ohio, Florida, Colorado and try to take New Hampshire.
written by Jay Golub , October 14, 2008
i don't see how "I got it wrong" Alibaba.
You are confirming my point that McCain, if he wants to win - which i can't believe, at this point, he doesn't - must increase Obama's negaitves using some of the exact issues you bring up.
I don't think making this a "republican vs. democrat" matter, like listing who will run departments, etc. But it is critical for McCain to point out who Obama is or, better yet, could become: dangerous to the longterm future of America.
His judgement, where one could find any, should be questioned by pointing out all of the people he's associated himself with over the years. Name, names as i've said.
Unfortunately, unless he does much of this Wedsnesday night, this whole thing will be all over...
written by Jay Golub , October 16, 2008
i guess McCain's staff didn't read my post...
Too bad, because he missed a few opportunities to score points.
McCain did make a clearer case for Nuclear power, although he didn't "name" American cities and states that already do it safely in 2008. It would have made a more forceful point.
he failed at trying to use John Lewis' comments - the "new" William Ayers. It was too overdone and he showed too much emotion to make the logical point that Obama has not said Lewis' comments were wrong or inappropriate.
I guess McCain just can't do this stuff.
McCain did do a better job explaining things with clarity, which helped on his answer to the economic crisis and healthcare, but he still lacked the precision he may have needed to win the debate.
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
