Thank you, Roger Simon.
I never thought I would type that sentence. Roger has done me a big favor today, though, by assembling a cast of Republicans who think McCain can win, and spell out how he should do it. Ken Duberstein, Greg Mueller and Whit Ayres weigh in -- and I hope John McCain takes their advice. All of it, in fact.
For starters, if this the best group of conservatives Simon could dredge up, that alone doesn't speak well of McCain's chances. These three are distinctly second tier; none of them were involved with any campaigns in 2008.
Their nostrums are hardly game-changers; it's as if they haven't noticed the pronounced change in swing states of the last two weeks. Take Duberstein:
"How is McCain going to oversee our financial institutions? How is he going to get unemployment down and jobs created? How is he going to find success in Iraq and progress in Afghanistan? How is he going to deal with big issues like nuclear proliferation? On Tuesday night, he has to demonstrate a broad vision, a big vision, and not just stuff that happens inside the Beltway."
Well, duh; enough of small ball. The problem for McCain, Ken, is that Obama is well versed in everything you cite here, including the "vision thing." McCain, on the other hand, has lacked vision throughout his campaign. If he formulates broad policy at this late date, Obama is going to tear him to pieces by simply noting that there are no plans behind McCain's grand rhetoric. Not to mention, of course, that McCain has never in his career been able to articulate big ideas beyond the patriotism that all politicians can summon up.
Mueller chooses the obvious: Return the frame to Obama.
"McCain needs to change the discussion back to a referendum on Obama. He needs to define Obama’s agenda as dangerous to America.
It is dangerous to the economy. Obama is calling for higher taxes, historical spending and a huge increase in regulation that will hamper American business. Contrast that with McCain’s message of lower taxes and freezing spending. On foreign policy and national security, Obama is a risky bet in a hostile world."
Here's the problem with that approach. Obama is not calling for higher taxes; it's George Bush who presided over the largest spending increase in history; and most Americans know that lack of regulations caused the meltdown on Wall Street. McCain's best shot at defining Obama as "a risky bet in a hostile world" came in the first debate; he failed, and there's no real opportunity for a do-over.
Ayers, a supposed "expert on Southern politics" reaches for the dark side:
"The Obama-Biden ticket is the most liberal ticket the Democrats have offered America since George McGovern in 1972. Barack Obama is far more liberal than most Americans. Moreover, a politician’s associations are a window into his values. If John McCain liked to hang around with the Ku Klux Klan, and if his church had given a lifetime achievement award to racist David Duke, all of us would consider those legitimate areas of inquiry."
Even if one acknowledges the power of guilt by association in American politics, the Ayres and Wright issues have been around since early in the primaries. The only voters they are likely to resonate with are low-information GOP ones. Getting them out to vote is hardly a game-changer.
Both Mueller and Ayres, moreover, harp on the Supreme Court as a wedge issue. Are they serious? When Americans see their end-of-quarter 401K statements, do these guys really think that voters will say to themselves, "We better make sure the Supreme Court doesn't become activist?"
The best thing about Simon's piece, IMHO, is the possibility that McCain will take all of the proffered advice. Do the vision thing, while getting in references to activist judges, William Ayres, Jeremiah Wright, taxes and nuclear proliferation. Give Americans the big picture AND the specifics -- in less than thirty days, from behind. Focus on the Supreme Court, despite the fact that polls consistently show (pdf, question 9a) that the economy is the top issue for a majority of voters. Convince voters that Obama isn't ready, when, with the exception of Iraq (and taxes, where they're now tied), on every issue the Wall Street Journal (question 12) polled, Obama leads. Harp on Jeremiah Wright, when 50% of Americans (question 14a) say they don't care (and only 15% have no opinion). By contrast, when asked about McCain's connections with lobbyists in the same question, 53% are bothered by them -- almost exactly the flip of the Wright question.
Moreover, nothing in their facile analyses considers that possibility that Obama is prepared for their recommendations. In fact, the speed with which the Obama campaign responded to Palin's renewed attack about William Ayres shows how well prepared Obama is for these gambits, which shows just how useless these ideas are to McCain. At this late date, none of these are surprises, which means of course they are not surprises to Obama, either. It's clear they're quite ready for these attacks. Thanks, Roger, for putting them in print. I expect McCain to go there, and I know Obama is ready.