Branding McCain a "Big Oil Cowboy"

In the news today was John McCain's attack on Obama, charging him with wanting to lose in Iraq because of his "ambition".



There have been many commenters who responded by urging Obama to hit
back.  I think he does need to hit McCain, but not necessarily hit back.

Obama should not let McCain dictate his message by responding to McCain's accusations du jour.  He needs to hit McCain where he's vulnerable, over and over again from the same angle.

Josh Marshall seems to agree.  In one of his posts today he said, "The lack of any consistent lines of attack against McCain is becoming palpable."

So let me be constructive and suggest the branding of John McCain as a Big Oil Cowboy.

Big Oil is a lever that can open several cans of worms:

    -- Domestic economy (gas prices)

    -- National security (foreign oil dependence)

    -- Lobbyist puppet

    -- Same as Bush and Cheney

Cowboy, of course, reminds people of his unstable personality:

    -- Gaffe-o-rama

    -- Same as Bush and Cheney

    -- Irresponsible war spending

    -- Shoot-from-the-hip deregulation

    -- Deteriorating memory

    -- Loose-cannon temper

I think Big Oil Cowboy is a punch that can be thrown over and over again.  It's a brand that can stick.

Let's see how this can work.

Greg Sargent on TPM EC posted Obama spokesman Bill Burton's response to McCain's attack:

All his bluster, distortions and negative attacks
notwithstanding, it is hard to understand how Senator McCain can at
once proclaim his support for the sovereign government of Iraq, and
then stubbornly defy their expressed support for a timeline to remove
our combat brigades from their country.  The difference in this race is
that John McCain is intent on spending $10 billion a month on an
open-ended war, while Barack Obama thinks we should bring this war to a
responsible end and invest in our pressing needs here at home.

Wow.  Two complex sentences totalling six clauses and 89 words, all
jammed into a single paragraph.  Let's rewrite that keeping our
branding in mind:

John McCain is singing his same old song.  Stay in Iraq and spend, spend, spend.  Spend the lives of our precious children.  Spend your hard-earned dollars on Big Oil and Blackwater.

Now their government wants a timeline for withdrawal.  John McCain disagrees.  He says they're just confused.

But McCain can't remember the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.  He confuses Iraqi extremists with Al Qaeda.  He can't tell you who the enemy is.

We think it's John McCain who's confused.  We can't afford another cowboy in the White House.

I'm not Barack Obama, but I approve this message anyway.

Not counting the tag line, that's 12 simple sentences totalling four paragraphs and 88 words.

KISS!  Keep It Simple, Stupid!

Branding McCain a "Big Oil Cowboy"

In the news today was John McCain's attack on Obama, charging him with wanting to lose in Iraq because of his "ambition".

There have been many commenters who responded by urging Obama to hit back.  I think he does need to hit McCain, but not necessarily hit back.

Obama should not let McCain dictate his message by responding to McCain's accusations du jour.  He needs to hit McCain where he's vulnerable, over and over again from the same angle.

Josh Marshall seems to agree.  In one of his posts today he said, "The lack of any consistent lines of attack against McCain is becoming palpable."

So let me be constructive and suggest the branding of John McCain as a Big Oil Cowboy.

Big Oil is a lever that can open several cans of worms:
    -- Domestic economy (gas prices)
    -- National security (foreign oil dependence)
    -- Lobbyist puppet
    -- Same as Bush and Cheney

Cowboy, of course, reminds people of his unstable personality:
    -- Gaffe-o-rama
    -- Same as Bush and Cheney
    -- Iresponsible spending
    -- Deteriorating memory
    -- Loose-cannon temper

I think Big Oil Cowboy is a punch that can be thrown over and over again.  It's a brand that can stick.

Let's see how this can work.

Greg Sargent on TPM EC posted Obama spokesman Bill Burton's response to McCain's attack:

All his bluster, distortions and negative attacks notwithstanding, it is hard to understand how Senator McCain can at once proclaim his support for the sovereign government of Iraq, and then stubbornly defy their expressed support for a timeline to remove our combat brigades from their country.  The difference in this race is that John McCain is intent on spending $10 billion a month on an open-ended war, while Barack Obama thinks we should bring this war to a responsible end and invest in our pressing needs here at home.

Wow.  Two complex sentences totalling six clauses and 89 words, all jammed into a single paragraph.  Let's rewrite that keeping our branding in mind:

John McCain is singing his same old song.  Stay in Iraq and spend, spend, spend.  Spend the lives of our precious children.  Spend your hard-earned dollars on Big Oil and Blackwater.

Now their government wants a timeline for withdrawal.  John McCain disagrees.  He says they're just confused.

But McCain can't remember the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.  He confuses Iraqi extremists with Al Qaeda.  He can't tell you who the enemy is.

We think it's John McCain who's confused.  We can't afford another cowboy in the White House.

I'm not Barack Obama, but I approve this message anyway.

Not counting the tag line, that's 12 simple sentences totalling four paragraphs and 88 words.

KISS!  Keep It Simple, Stupid!

In the news today was John McCain's attack on Obama, charging him with wanting to lose in Iraq because of his "ambition".

There have been many commenters who responded by urging Obama to hit back.  I think he does need to hit McCain, but not necessarily hit back.

Obama should not let McCain dictate his message by responding to McCain's accusations du jour.  He needs to hit McCain where he's vulnerable, over and over again from the same angle.

Josh Marshall seems to agree.  In one of his posts today he said, "The lack of any consistent lines of attack against McCain is becoming palpable."

So let me be constructive and suggest the branding of John McCain as a Big Oil Cowboy.

Big Oil is a lever that can open several cans of worms:

    -- Domestic economy (gas prices)

    -- National security (foreign oil dependence)

    -- Lobbyist puppet

    -- Same as Bush and Cheney

Cowboy, of course, reminds people of his unstable personality:

    -- Gaffe-o-rama

    -- Same as Bush and Cheney

    -- Iresponsible spending

    -- Deteriorating memory

    -- Loose-cannon temper

I think Big Oil Cowboy is a punch that can be thrown over and over again.  It's a brand that can stick.

Let's see how this can work.

Greg Sargent on TPM EC posted Obama spokesman Bill Burton's response to McCain's attack:

All his bluster, distortions and negative attacks notwithstanding, it is hard to understand how Senator McCain can at once proclaim his support for the sovereign government of Iraq, and then stubbornly defy their expressed support for a timeline to remove our combat brigades from their country.  The difference in this race is that John McCain is intent on spending $10 billion a month on an open-ended war, while Barack Obama thinks we should bring this war to a responsible end and invest in our pressing needs here at home.

Wow.  Two complex sentences totalling six clauses and 89 words, all jammed into a single paragraph.  Let's rewrite that keeping our branding in mind:

John McCain is singing his same old song.  Stay in Iraq and spend, spend, spend.  Spend the lives of our precious children.  Spend your hard-earned dollars on Big Oil and Blackwater.

Now their government wants a timeline for withdrawal.  John McCain disagrees.  He says they're just confused.

But McCain can't remember the difference between Sunnis and Shiites.  He confuses Iraqi extremists with Al Qaeda.  He can't tell you who the enemy is.

We think it's John McCain who's confused.  We can't afford another cowboy in the White House.

I'm not Barack Obama, but I approve this message anyway.

Not counting the tag line, that's 12 simple sentences totalling four paragraphs and 88 words.

KISS!  Keep It Simple, Stupid!

Flat Tire McCain

Senator John McCain today won the endorsement of Brooklyn's most famous bus driver, Ralph Cramden.

Interviewed while trying to turn his bus around on the Belt Parkway, Mr. Cramden said, "I have to support the only candidate who realizes we should all let some air out of our tires.  It's about time."

When it was pointed out that flat tires will only decrease fuel economy, he said, "Of course!  That's the point!

"Look, there's only one source of gas, and that's the oil companies.  They're the key.  We have to help them increase production by using as much as we can.  Every idiot who's heard of 'economies of scale' will tell you the more you buy, the more you save.  Don't you know you can trust your car to the Man Who Wears the Star?  If it weren't true, they couldn't have said it on TV last night!"

Experts confirmed that reducing tire pressure would cause cars to travel more slowly.  Some suggested that it might eliminate the need for lower speed limits, thereby saving thousands of lives.

Other experts observed that if you let all the air out of a car's tires, it will consume no gas at all.

Increased ridership on Brooklyn's buses would also be a beneficial side-effect.

In accepting Mr. Cramden's endorsement, Sen. McCain said he would soon be letting all the air out of half the tires on the Straight Talk Express.  He did not elaborate as to whether those tires were on the left or the right side of the bus.  But he did confirm that his Flat Tire strategy had been thoroughly examined and approved by his chief economic advisor, Phil Gramm, even though it might lead to increased engine whining.

While acknowledging his gratitude for Mr. Cramden's endorsement, Sen. McCain explained his decision to not appear with him in person by noting that, "Ralph's a great working-class white guy and all, but he's just too much of a, well, a celebrity.  You know how I feel about celebrities."

Sen. McCain also offered to help Mr. Cramden send Alice to the moon, should he ever be asked.  His first wife, Carol McCain, did not immediately return a phone message asking her to comment.

We've seen accusations of racism and sexism thrown back and forth in the battle between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.  Lurking not far behind are charges of ageism made against some criticisms of John McCain.

But are not concerns about McCain's cognitive health valid, whether disease- or age-related?  Isn't it about McCain himself, rather than his general age group?

McCain has indeed lost a noticeable amount of mental acuity over the last four years.  I became convinced of that recently.

No, not because of his mandatory-voluntary emissions-cap gaffe.  He could slip that noose with something like, "No, caps are not mandatory.  If you buy carbon credits, you can exceed the cap."  The MSM wouldn't blink an eye.

Rather, it was the social-security bamboozlement video that Josh put together for TPMtv.  It contrasted McCain's current repudiation of SS privatization with his 2004 boosterism for exactly that.

Take a look at McCain's 2004 performance.  The clip occurs about 3:35 into the vid.

Doesn't McCain seem hugely more animated, alert, and mentally sharp than he does today?

I didn't form this conjecture and go looking for evidence.  It caught me by surprise.  The degree of difference between the McCains of four years ago and today is so striking that it kinda jolted me.

If you see it the same way as I did, you might wonder if McCain's senescence could really become an issue.  One factor to consider is the the strength of the P-C strictures that rule in many places.  (Others might phrase that less cynically.)

I'm inclined to recall the NY Senate race of 1980.  Alfonse D'Amato beat incumbent Jacob Javits in the Republican primary, due in large measure to Javits's affliction with Lou Gherig's disease -- a neurological disease that severely compromises cognitive function.  (Javits ran anyway on the Liberal Party line and split the liberal vote with Democrat Liz Holtzman, handing Senator Pothole the plurality win.)

Now, Javits's impairment was much greater than McCain's current rash of senior moments.  But it is a relevant precedent.

Dunno how all this is gonna play out.  (Duh!)  I think I'll keep watching.

After the 2004 elections, astrophysicists J. Richard Gott and Wes Colley found that the results matched almost exactly a new poll-based indicator they were looking at.  In their method, each state was assigned to either Kerry or Bush according to the number of polls each was leading in, irrespective of the size of the lead shown by any of the polls.  The only state that differed from their predictor was Hawaii.

Wes Colley now has a web page showing a tracking meta-poll of the Obama-McCain race.  You can find it here.

As of today (2008-06-25 Wed), it shows Obama ahead 355 electoral votes to 183 for McCain. States that are shown as flips from their 2004 results are CO, FL, IN, IA, MO, NM, OH, and VA for Obama, and none for McCain.

Of course, the general election is far too distant for this or any poll to be a useful predictor of what will happen in November.  So much can happen between now and then.  It can, however, serve either campaign as a guide to where to spend resources.  By clicking on one of the dates (e.g., 6/25), you can see for each state how many polls favor one candidate or the other.

Their method is described in a 6/6 NYT op-ed piece, and Dr. Gott can be heard discussing it in a Scientific American podcast.

Enjoy!  --jzap