« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Perhaps We Aren't Doomed After All
"Perhaps we aren't doomed after all" is what Michael Gerson thinks about John McCain's performance at Rick Warren's Saddleback Civic Forum with the presidential candidates. In other words, McCain gives Gerson hope that the Republicans can win the White House in November.
I watched the forum and I've read almost every assessment of it I can get my hands on, from Bill Kristol to Mike Madden to Byron York to Chris Cillizza to Rod Dreher to Stephen Suh to Catholics to gays. I've read about the merits of style and pay grades and character. I've read about which pat answer is the best pat answer, at least to cater to the people whose vote apparently matters more than mine: the almighty evangelical Christian voters. After two faith forums in this election cycle, I've come to some conclusions.
It doesn't matter if McCain ripped off Solzhenitsyn, it doesn't matter if McCain wasn't in a cone of silence, it doesn't matter if McCain offers to go to the mythical gates of hell to get Osama bin Laden. It doesn't matter who lies or who tells the truth.
What matters is that Barack Obama is wasting his time courting voters who will never vote for him.
Comments (20)
Yes. And the pay grade comment was a disgrace. Obama had a chance to rally his base instead of mollifying McCain's, who, as you say, will never vote for him anyway.
Obama, through his pay grade remark, conceded that abortion might be murder if some higher pay grade decides that life begins at conception.
Our Constitutional law professor missed an opportunity to explain and defend Roe.
Obama forgot what he apparently once knew. His audience was much wider than the wingnuts in that hall.
August 18, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama knew he would be asked the beginning-of-life question, so I suspect it's a line he's used before, but with a different pay-grade crowd. Gerson said the line "bordered on a gaffe," and I think that's an accurate assessment. Obama's predictably getting skewered for it.
Obama misjudged the Saddleback crowd and underestimated McCain's nimbleness, charm, and genuine ability. McCain is not just a military veteran, he's a veteran politician who has run for president before.
Last night I watched McCain's address from the 2004 Republican National Convention on C-SPAN. I think every Democrat should watch it: for content, for crowd reaction, and for what he does to Michael Moore.
Obama needs to see the IMAX version of it. Burn it into his brain.
August 18, 2008 2:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
The pay grade comment meant that the US president (or senators) doesn't (don't) decide when life begins. I took the "higher up" to mean God and thought it a very honest answer because, at this time, nobody does know when life begins but many of that audience think they do want the government to agree.
August 18, 2008 4:38 PM | Reply | Permalink
AND want the government to agree.
August 18, 2008 4:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
You're absolutely correct -- a long-time minister friend (and I'm sure others) uses that phrase "above my pay grade" when referencing something that only God can know. It never occurred to me that Obama meant anything else and it was quite appropriate. What the heck do people think he DID mean??? Who was he referring to that would be sufficient pay grade? There's really no explanation for the comment other than as a reference to God.
And as a gentle reminder that the answer to that question is above ANYONE's pay grade. Not even Minister Rick or John McCain have any more authority to answer that question, no matter what they think or say.
August 18, 2008 5:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
The question was: At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
Saying it's "above your pay grade" is a dodge for a politician (because politicians inhabit the secular world) in a way that those same words are not a dodge for a minister (because ministers inhabit the spiritual world). Warren made it as easy as possible for Obama to answer the question by using the word "baby" instead of "fetus." Obama should have demonstrated more thoughtfulness and less flippancy by answering the question about human rights instead of the question that wasn't asked: about when life begins.
August 18, 2008 6:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wrong, wrong and wrong.
Obama is courting these voters to minimize his losses there. Obama has dvantages among other groups that McCain can't hope to win. Obama is merely trying to keep his losses to a minimum. Kerry lost evangelicals by like 80-20. If Obama can shave that to 70-30, he'll be president. Kerry lost the election by 100,000 in Ohio.
The conventional wisdom is wrong. Simply, flat out wrong.
August 18, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, but you're flat-out dreaming. Obama just managed to maximize his losses with evangelicals. Read the links.
August 18, 2008 1:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Evangelicals" make up a very small (and shrinking) percentage of the republican party. For every "evangelical" Obama loses, he picks up two or three centrist republicans, democrats or independents who are tired of vocal fringe groups driving the direction of our politics - right or left.
Playing to the base on either side will lose this direction. Not talking to republicans because some of them have fringe ideas is suicidal. By not using these opportunities to define himself, he cedes that ground to McCain.
All the links you provided are from people who would say McCain was winning if he was caught blowing a donkey on national television. Kristol, et al are not reliable or objective sources of GOP info, especially not reflective of mainstream republican thought.
Those guys are neocons and fringe opinions at best. If any of their "opinions" were correct, Barack would have already lost to Hillary, because no one in the republican party is really voting for him, despite getting more votes in red states than all GOP candidates combined.
The news of Barack's death among the rank and file of the republican party is vastly overstated - by democrats and neocons no less, two groups that are historically bad at judging true conservatives in this country.
Stand up and be counted Obamicans!
August 18, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If evangelicals are such a dying breed, what's Obama doing courting them at all? He needs to target an even smaller minority of pro-choice evangelicals like Condi Rice and Alberto Gonzales.
August 18, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
All of these venues speak to audiences beyond those that are physically present. They also speak to people who aren't all that religious, but are curios how this idea is being handled by each candidate.
How better to judge those ideas but by how they are articulated to the audiences in question? In this case, religious Americans, not necessarily "evangelicals" - a very misunderstood and maligned demographic if there ever was one.
Not every "evangelical" is trying to bring on the Apocalypse. Just like every progressive isn't a closet Communist. Labels are very limiting in their ability to truly define anything.
August 18, 2008 6:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with what you're saying, Jason, yet I think the audience's rousing response to McCain carried a potential negative weighting for Obama, like it would during a debate.
What I mean is: If you watched the forum at home, you would notice the more boisterous applause McCain received for his answers compared to Obama. If audience reaction colors people's perceptions (as it seems to during some of the formal debates; at least pundits like Josh always comment on audience reaction), what's the point of pursuing highly elusive voters and then possibly alienating some undecideds because your answers didn't get people fired up? I keep thinking of the aphorism First, do no harm, and I'm not sure these faith forums are harmless.
August 18, 2008 6:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I still posit that your impression may indeed be the one that some viewers had, but the more thoughtful might see it as the home-crowd advantage and leave it at that. I am see a trend toward thoughtfulness this year that doesn't seem to be reflected in the media.
August 18, 2008 7:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't care what he did or didn't do with the wingnuts, though I tend to agree with gasket that he mainly confirmed their impression of him. I'm talking about his missed opportunity to rally his own base on all of those issues. Please tell me the last thing you remember Obama saying that could be called a call to arms. Peace is gone. Health care is gone. Privacy is gone twice now. Drilling is gone. Expanding NATO is gone. Palestine is gone. What great cause is Obama running on?
August 18, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Obama needed to somehow itemize the immoral actions of the Bush administration and tie morality to the rule of law.
McCain stole the moral-authority spotlight by defining what's immoral: abortion, adultery, and allowing terrorists to run free.
August 18, 2008 6:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think conventional wisdom is out-the -window in this election.
I truly think that most Americans will vote for Obama based on his character and not individual issues.
I get this sense from many Republicans that I know, personally. I don't give two shits what the polls are saying... I believe the majority of voters and potential voters just flat-out like Obama.
I was on a cruise for the last week. During that time I heard a lot of chatter regarding the GE, and I gotta tell ya, I only recall one individual out of at least thirty conversations (almost all overheard) that was in the McCain corner, and from the way it sounded, they too were sceptical as to whether McCain was right for the country.
I'm not sure what's going on here, but if my brother-in-law is saying he's voting for Obama, I'm pretty sure it's in the bag.
thanks for the post-- but I think Obama is doing a great job with all constituencies.
cheers
August 18, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
If this campaign comes down to character and not individual issues, we are screwed. In 1992, GHWB had a huge character advantage on Clinton and Bill Clinton won because people considered the issues and detailed plans to fix our problems more important than his character.
Recommended reading: The Choice: How Bill Clinton Won by Bo Woodward.
I am not saying that Obama has to follow Bill Clinton's "It's the Economy, Stupid" to a tee, but it's far more logical than hoping he'll win on character alone vs. John McCain. Obama crushes McCain on the economy which is the number one issue by far for voters this year. If you want to do a forum, why not one focusing on economic issues rather than pandering to the Christian evangelical right that we have no hopes of winning?
August 18, 2008 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
August 18, 2008 7:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Broken link.
August 19, 2008 10:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/20/magazine/20minister-t.html
Also there's a thread on it with 32 comments here:
http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/2008/07/i-understand-why-they-are-doin.php
August 19, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment