Daily Archives: September 26, 2008

Leadership involves more than just showing up (or not showing up)

McCain swooped into Washington yesterday in the name of “Country First”.  Now, I’m not sure I’m for the bailout or against it, but guess what?  Neither is McCain.  Seriously, where does he stand on this bailout?  What is his plan?

A statement from the campaign of Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz.:

“At today’s Cabinet meeting, John McCain did not attack any proposal or endorse any plan. John McCain simply urged that, for any proposal to enjoy the confidence of the American people, stressing that all sides would have to cooperate and build a bipartisan consensus for a solution that protects taxpayers. However, the Democrats allowed Sen. Obama to run their side of the meeting. That did not work, as the meeting quickly devolved into a contentious shouting match that did not seek to craft a bipartisan solution.”

Leadership requires vision.  It requires leading.  And this lack of vision is what’s turning McCain’s actions of the last few days into a political stunt.   It’s one thing to show up, take charge, and lay out what you feel needs to be done.  It’s quite another to claim your presence is desperately needed while offering no solutions to the matter at hand.  And that’s what McCain has done.  He’s in Washington, but he’s not saying anything.  He’s not leading.  He’s hindering in the name of hindering.

Leadership involves risk.  Real risk, not the phoney “I’m suspending my campaign, canceling the debate, and if I lose the election because I look too Presidential, so be it” martyrdom nonsense that McCain is spewing.  So if McCain has to be in Washington then he has to take a stand on the bailout.  He must state why he is for or against the bailout.  He must be specific. He can’t just be there.

McCain has deliberately inserted himself into this situation. He has deliberately cast himself in the role of savior. Savior of his political campaign or the economy? Or savior of “no matter what it takes we can’t let Sarah Palin debate!”

Bailout or No Bailout?

I get the sense that opinions on any kind of bailout, or rescue plan, of Wall Street run the gamit around here, whether you are a Republican or Democrat, whether you are a liberal, moderate or conservative.    It is much like the immigration issue, where there really was never any unified Democratic v. Republican stance on the issue.  Both parties were, and are, divided against each other.  

The American people seem to think something has to be done, but they hate the Bush/Paulson plan:

“Do you think the government should use taxpayers’ dollars to rescue ailing private financial firms whose collapse could have adverse effects on the economy and market, or is it not the government’s responsibility to bail out private companies with taxpayers’ dollars?”
Use Taxpayer Dollars 31%–55% Not Government’s Responsibility

“As you may know, the government is potentially investing billions to try and keep financial institutions and markets secure. Do you think this is the right thing or the wrong thing for the government to be doing?”
Right Thing 57%–30% Wrong Thing

As you may know, the Bush administration has proposed a plan that would allow the Treasury Department to buy and re-sell up to $700 billion of distressed assets from financial companies. What would you like to see Congress do — [ROTATED: pass a plan similar to what the Bush administration has proposed, take action but pass something different from what the Bush administration has proposed, (or) not take any action on this matter]?

Pass Bush Plan – 22%
Pass Different Plan – 56%
Take No Action – 11%

I want everyone who reads and contributes to let me know their thoughts on a proposed bailout.  

Here are my thoughts below:

Continue reading →

Lee is feeling burned

NBC 10 is out with its own poll on Delaware’s gubernatorial race this morning, and its findings confirm the SurveyUSA and FDU/PM polls also released this week. 

Markell 64%, Lee 29%   (703 LV)

The above linked News Journal article makes the point that Lee has come back from being down in the polls before.  In 2004, Lee was behind Minner by 18 points and he closed the gap to make it a relatively close race in the end.    To that I say, Jack Markell is no Ruth Ann Minner.   Challenging an incumbent is much easier than winning an election on your own merits in an open race.    Bill Lee’s reaction to the numbers:

“I did not expect the numbers to show that wide a gap,” Lee said. “They’re inconsistent with the less sophisticated polling we’ve done. But it is what it is. I don’t see it as discouraging. I see it as challenging.”

[…] “I don’t know what effect it will have on fundraising,” he said. “I’ve been very focused on Republicans who I think feel some obligation for the way I got into the race and some sense that this is a climactic election and it’s one we have to win. Those kind of numbers can encourage people. But it’s certainly not a positive for fundraising.”

This response raises two issues.  First, Lee thinks his fundraising may increase now, at least among Republicans.  Ha!   Being down more than 30 points does not increase fundraising.  Being down 30 points means the Republican Governors Association and the RNC are at this very moment packing their bags and fleeing Delaware for more contested races, if they were ever here in the first place.   Being down 30 points means that the GOP more wealthy contributors will not contribute to Lee, for that is a bad bet on a sure loser.  What they will do now is attempt to help Copeland, or they will concentrate on helping McCain-Palin in Pennsylvania.  

Don’t believe me?  Then listen to Don Mell, a political strategist and consultant who worked on Lee’s gubernatorial campaigns in 2000 and 2004.

“It will effectively shut down Bill’s fundraising capabilities,” he said. “In this economy, I think people are going to be like they are on Wall Street — the herd is going to go where they think they’re going to win. There is that sort of mentality in politics.”

The second issue is the support Bill Lee is garnering among Republicans.    Bill Lee, in his quote above, is laying a guilt trip on Republicans.    He is basically saying that Republicans should feel an obligation to support him because it was they who drafted him.   I wonder if he said that because he saw the breakdowns in the polls on party support.   Markell was supposedly going to suffer from a divided party due to the close primary election.  Wrong.  More than 80% of Democrats are supporting Markell.   Meanwhile, only 61% of Republicans are supporting Lee.  Indeed, 25% of the remaining GOP vote is supporting Markell.  I am sure that rubs Lee the wrong way, hence the guilt trip. 

Top 10 REAL Reasons McCain Wants to Skip the Debate

This thread suggested by a loyal reader (not sure yet if he wants the credit) and starts the reasons:

10.  I have to wax all 13 cars that night.

9.   I found a set of house keys, and I have to try them out in each of my 8 to 12 houses.

8.   9/11

7.   Taller candidate usually wins and these podiums don’t let me hide my orange crate

6.   Debate Commission disallowed use of the phrase “My Friends”

5.   Lobbyists don’t work past 6 on Fridays, so he has no staff available.

You know you have more — count them down in the comments!

QOM

So how stupid do you Bush voter’s feel now? 

War on Terror…Mushroom Cloud….Shoe Bomber…Dirty Bombs…Gay Marriage….Privatize Social Security…Illegal Immigration…Border Fence….Drill, Drill, Drill….