Matthew Yglesias » Phoning It In

Sep 27th, 2008 at 6:15 pm

Phoning It In

After last night’s debate, John McCain went to his condo in Northern Virginia (one of eight or so houses he owns) and he’s been around there ever since. Why not head to the Hill to help with bailout negotiations? Well:

Asked why Mr. McCain did not go to Capitol Hill after coming back to Washington to help with negotiations, Mr. Salter replied that “he can effectively do what he needs to do by phone.’’

Which of course raises the question of why he had to pretend to suspend his campaign in order to rush physically to Washington last week.

Comments
48

48 Responses to “Phoning It In”

Jake Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 6:18 pm
Wait. McCain can use a phone?
pacer521 Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 6:26 pm
funny above comment.

http://culturedecoded.wordpress.com/
lampwick Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
But Jonah Goldberg told me he can’t raise his arms above his shoulders. How does he use a phone? Or does he actually use one of those Blackberries he invented?

On an unrelated topic, here’s a hypothetical for you:

This Thursday, Joe Biden, who is being trained by Patty Solis Doyle, Hillary Clinton’s former campaign manager, will have a debate with Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton’s conservative manque, which will be moderated by a woman who, like Joe Biden’s running mate, happens to be African-American.

Now assume that you are Rick Davis. What advice do you give to Palin in order to lure Biden into making quasi-sexist or pseudo-racist comments?

Please express your answer in under 500 words, and hand your bluebook to the instructor when you are done.
Jake Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 6:30 pm
Actually, I thought Johnny Drama did all his negotiating via WebCam. What happened?
Mike Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
He had to lower expectations for the debate as much as possible. If he’d pulled off a clear cut victory after people were expecting that he might be a shade under-prepared it would have played well.
pseudonymous in nc Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 6:34 pm
What advice do you give to Palin in order to lure Biden into making quasi-sexist or pseudo-racist comments?

In a form that she can remember.
dave Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Because he’s a subcommittee chairman, and when you’re a subcommittee chairman you have to use your powers or bills will be festooned with $932 million my friends, and Senator Obama doesn’t understand that, and I can guarantee you he doesn’t have a seal.
Under the bus Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 6:58 pm
He had to pretend to suspend his campaign because they think that by winning news cycles, they’ll win the election. Or maybe the Drama King just enjoys the attention. We should let him campaign for the rest of his life, it should be interesting to watch.
Roschelle Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
McCain supporters feel a Palin Shotgun Wedding might help flagging campaign!

Unbelievable….
lampwick Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 7:24 pm
McCain has bad judgment when it comes to women.
Comment Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
Can Bristol’s Baby Bump Lead To a Bump in the Polls? Sure. Why not?
rupert Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
I had heard that Jennifer Granholm, the Michigan Gov. was going to play Palin for Biden’s debate prep; she’s hotter than Sarah. And originally from Canada, so she should be able to imitate the accent.

As for McCain, he really does prefer to negotiate by phone, so he doesn’t have to look you in the eye.
Comment Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 7:31 pm
Biden may have noticed that Palin seems to have exaggerated her academic
excellence in that Alaska pagent video from 1984.

But Biden also exaggerated his too.
Comment Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 7:33 pm
If Granholm debated Palin — it would be a pretty hot debate. Segolene Royal from France is the only stateswoman who could defeat either one in a hotness contest.

Yeah – some people think Timoshenko of Ukraine is hot too, but until Ukraine gets NATO membership, their stateswomen should not be allowed to compete.
Comment Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 7:37 pm
Obama should have put out word that Madeline Albright was gonna play
McCain in debate prep.

McCain and his posse can’t take being mocked. They can dish it out, but they bristled like stuck pigs when Obama mocked them sarcastically.
lampwick Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 7:40 pm
What about Tzipi Livni? (On whom I have a big crush.)
EarBucket Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
Wait, he’s just hanging out in his condo? He’s not out on the campaign trail? He’s letting Obama work the electorate unchallenged?

Is he giving up?
Kolohe Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 8:12 pm
What’s hilarious is that one of Hannity’s talking points this week was something like “Obama said there’s a crisis, but said ‘give me a call if you need any help.’ Is that leadership?”
Dialectic of Entitlement Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 8:23 pm
Ten bucks says the McCain camp is training Palin on when and how to break down into tears when Biden criticizes her, thus cornering the sympathy vote.
bdbd Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
interesting story if largely true, especially bit where Obama puts McCain on spot, and McCain skedaddles.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/26/AR2008092603957_pf.html
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
So Matt and the rest of the Democratic back-patters think Obama won the debate.

Well, maybe so.

Here are the headlines on the Google News page today:

US rivals claim TV debate victory
BBC News – 3 hours ago

Who won debate? TV pundits don’t agree on a winner
The Associated Press – 34 minutes ago

The Next Day, a New Debate on Who Won
New York Times – 6 hours ago

Analysts: No Game-Changer in First Debate
ABC News – 4 hours ago

McCain vs. Obama: Dueling temperaments, no defining moment in first…
San Jose Mercury News, USA – 10 hours ago

Analysis: Few jabs, but no knockout in first debate
CNN – 15 hours ago

Analysis: Split decision, but John McCain wins first debate on points
New York Daily News, NY – 16 hours ago

No Gaffes, No Knockouts In McCain-Obama Debate
NPR – 7 hours ago

Neither one wowed these undecideds
Minneapolis Star Tribune, MN – 4 hours ago

Does that look like Obama won – or that the main stream media intend to let him win the debate?

This debate will be forgotten by Monday – Tuesday at the latest.

Meanwhile, Joe Klein gives a more nuanced approach than Matt:

Klein: Obama Wins Debate On Tactics and Strategies
By Joe Klein
September 27, 2008

Toward the very end of last night’s debate—which was quite a good one, I believe—John McCain laid out his rationale in this election in just a few words: Senator Obama, he said, lacks the “knowledge and experience to be President.”

The presidency will turn on whether the American people agree with McCain on that—but on this night, Obama emerged as a candidate who was at least as knowledgeable, judicious and unflappable as McCain on foreign policy … and more knowledgeable, and better suited to deal with the economic crisis and domestic problems the country faces.

But even if my verdict were reversed to grant McCain a slight victory, there was nothing in this debate that was a knockout blow—nothing that should change the current trajectory of the campaign.

(Although it may staunch the slow bleed that McCain has experienced the past week).

Obama seemed plenty presidential; McCain seemed more prudent and thoughtful than he has since he uttered the most important line of the campaign so far, “the fundamentals of the economy are good.”

Neither man closed the sale, and I don’t think many votes, or opinions, were changed.

This was a debate—at times explicitly—about tactics and strategies.

McCain was more tactical, trying to pick fights with Obama on the details of foreign policy and not venturing beyond his personal domestic policy obsessions like the $18 billion spent per year on Congressional earmarks.

Obama was more concerned with strategy, and an overall vision for the country—he was the one who brought up the damage done to America’s standing in the world, and also the one who insisted on putting the war in Iraq in a broader strategic context: it had hurt America’s overall position in the middle east by empowering Iran and allowing Al Qaeda to regain strength in Afghanistan.

As for McCain’s remark about Obama not knowing the difference between a tactic and a strategy—McCain was wrong.

The counterinsurgency methods introduced by David Petraeus in Iraq were a tactical change, a new means to achieve Bush’s
same strategic end of a stable, unified Iraq.

If Bush had decided to partition the country, or to withdraw, that would have been a change in strategy.

McCain was clearly the aggressor in this debate and that may have worked to his advantage—Obama graciously admitted when he agreed with McCain;

McCain rarely acknowledged Obama in that or any other way.

The problem with McCain’s aggressiveness was that it almost always involved misstating Obama’s positions—on
——-offshore drilling,
——-nuclear power,
——-talking to our enemies,
——-raising taxes on the middle class,
——-attacking Pakistan …

the same list of untruths McCain has stuck with throughout the campaign.

Or he’d try to make petty distinctions, like whether Obama’s initial statements on Georgia were tough enough.

When Obama chose to criticize McCain it was on big things—

——-supporting the war in Iraq,
——-opposing alternative energy,
——-standing by the Republican trickle-down philosophy of taxation.

In this way, too, Obama was strategic and McCain tactical.

McCain was also confused about what “preconditions” means in diplo-speak.

The Bush Administration had, until recently, set a precondition for talks with Iran: that the Iranians had to stop processing nuclear fuel.

Obama would talk to the Iranians—as Henry Kissinger and James Baker would—without setting that condition.

( Diplo-speak only vaguely resembles English: precondition is redundant, all conditions for starting a negotiation are pre-. )

Unfortunately, we never learned how McCain feels about that condition because Obama dropped the ball here—he never explained what he meant by “preconditions” in this specific context or asked McCain if he agreed.

There were several other opportunities missed by Obama: he could have noted that the Iraqi government has agreed to his notion of a timetable and asked McCain, Do you want to stay longer than the Iraqis want us there?

Ultimately, sadly, these debates are won, or lost, on style and perceptions of character—not substance.

Those are matters of taste.

We’ll see if McCain seemed too old or Obama too young.

Obama did speak in a stronger, firmer voice.

He was clear, straightforward and not at all professorial.

He looked directly into the camera; McCain rarely, if ever, did.

But McCain put his experience—his frequent travels overseas—to good use in this debate, although his standard laugh lines like “Miss Congeniality” seemed to bomb.

Obama did everything he had to do, with few if any mistakes.

I thought McCain did less so.

The early snap polling seems to agree with me, but I’d caution against taking those too seriously.

This was a big event in this campaign—the beginning of the end.

It will need to be digested, discussed around the water cooler and the dinner table.

But the race has not been decided yet.

That’s about the size of it.

Ever notice how the Dems spend a lot of time patting themselves on the back about how wonderful their candidate is and how brilliant the Dem campaign is – right up until they lose on election night?

Then they walk around in shock for the next four years – and then select another loser the next time? Clinton has been the only difference – and that was because he acted enough like Kennedy to fool the US electorate that he wasn’t a Republican in disguise.

The problem is that Obama via-a-vis Iran is he’s starting from a no-win position: while he doesn’t want the Iranians to give up enrichment BEFORE the talks, that IS the end goal of the talks.

And the Iranians will never, ever do that.

Which means he ends having to go to war just as much as McCain or Bush. As long as the US believes that Iran has a nuclear weapons program, it’s impossible to resolve the situation.

I’ve yet to hear ONE Democrat or “liberal” understand that.

Unfortunately, we never learned how McCain feels about that condition because Obama dropped the ball here—he never explained what he meant by “preconditions” in this specific context or asked McCain if he agreed.

And that’s the problem with Obama’s policies – there’s no “HOW” there. He claims he’ll do this and that – but there’s never any “HOW”.
Adam Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 9:33 pm
Hack, do you have ANYTHING else to say? Seriously, every single post I think I’ve ever seen you make here is novel-sized and 80% about Israel and Iran.

You really don’t have to keep repeating the only point you ever make: that we’re going to war with Iran in October and this will cost Obama the election. We’ve heard it 500 times. You’re the only person who believes it, and if somehow it comes true we’ll give you a pat on the back. I believe there’s a “bomb Iran” contract on intrade; go make yourself rich if you’re so convinced of it. But dear god keep this board free of your drivel if that’s all you have to say.

It was a slight win for Obama. Call it a tie if you want. We’re all *perfectly fine* with that. He’s 6 points ahead and just parried McCain’s best shot to catch up, his home turf. I have no idea who you actually want to win but you’re either an epic concern troll or just a regular troll. Enough.
lampwick Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
Richard Steven Hack = 0
DTM Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 9:48 pm
Maybe he has a bad roaming plan.
Comment Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 9:53 pm
Obama may bomb Iran – before the end of his second term. But McCain most certainly would.

You play the odds.

But who knows – if the German Finance Minister is correct, we might be a second world economy by then.
Comment Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 9:59 pm
Another thing about Obama – he’s not the type of person (unlike McCain) who will want to elevate threats.

If Obama thinks Iran is a threat – he will be believed. If McCain says Iran is a threat – people will just think he is hyping the threat for reasons unknown.

McCain keeps saying “I will never surrender” in Iraq.

Surrender? To who?

Some think McCain is really thinking about Nam when he talks about Iraq.
lampwick Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 10:01 pm
Meanwhile Sarah Palin has been calling all her Christianist friends in Alaska to tell them she met, get this, a Jew for the first time; he had a funny name like Henry Kissing-Her or something.

Didn’t get him to convert; but maybe next time.
rupert Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 10:33 pm
I won’t talk to Richard Steven Hack, with or without preconditions. I’m just going to bomb him.
El Cid Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
The New York Times officially becomes shrill.

Don’t Blame the New Deal
New York Times Editorial

This year’s serial bailouts are proof of a colossal regulatory failure. But it is not “the system” that failed, as President Bush, Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and others who are complicit in the calamity would like Americans to believe. People failed.

For decades now, antiregulation disciples of the Reagan Revolution have eliminated vital laws, blocked the enactment of much-needed new regulations, or simply refused to exercise their legal authority.

The regulatory system for banks, securities, commodities and insurance is unwieldy and in need of modernization. The system has gaps, like the absence of regulation for “innovations” such as credit default swaps, the insurance-like contracts now valued at $62 trillion whose destructive potential prompted the bailouts of Bear Stearns and the American International Group.

But the failures that have landed us in the mess we are in today are not mainly structural. To assert that they are masks deeper failings and sets false terms for the upcoming debate on regulatory reform…

…Indeed, it was in the Bush years that antiregulation and deregulation found full expression, fueled by an ideology that markets know best, government hampers markets, and problems will magically fix themselves…
rapier Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 11:57 pm
No matter the past he’s smart to stay out of the way of the bailout train wreck. I’m praying the Republicans kill it because if it passes it will be a millstone around the Democrats neck for a generation.

There is nobody in the world who likes the plan except Paulson and his friends, who wrote it. It will do nothing to solve the systematic problems which are global. The play is a tactical one to help out the FOH.

The very odd dynamic seems to be that politicians, especially Democratic ones, think something has to be done. Did captain Smith order the crew to bail the Titanic because something had to be done? They are going to do something. They know not what they do but trust Paulson, a high priest of money and finance does. He does alright, he knows how to do big deals to make his tribe a lot of money. The idea that Pelosi, Reid and Frank are kissing this guys ass is disgusting beyond belief and FDR and two generations of Democrats are rolling in their graves.

US banks have lost more money this year than they have made in total since,,,,,,,, forever. Hubris, greed and just plain stupidity have destroyed the credit system. It’s wrecked. The economy is going to shrink. The credit market will continue to be a disaster and equity markets are going to continue to see air pockets. The bailout plan will actually make things worse as Uncle Sam borrows money to fund the bailouts he is starving the rest of the credit markets.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 27th, 2008 at 11:58 pm
OK, suckers. I’ll be the one laughing the day after election day.

We may not go to war with Iran in October, because the House has shelved the blockade bill. And if the Guardian is right, Bush really has given up on doing anything about Iran, no doubt to Cheney’s disgust.

But there’s still Israel. And Israel ain’t supporting Obama.

I’m not a concern troll. I damn sure don’t want McCain to win since that could result in San Francisco getting serious terrorist activity.

But what I’m complaining about is that we’re no better off with Obama – at least in foreign policy matters. And I don’t give a damn about domestic policy, since I’m already so low on the totem pole nothing that happens in this country is going to affect me anyway.

It’s simply pathetic and laughable that the Dems can’t do any better than this. You say you’re fine with a “tie” – against a senile, demented old fool like McCain.

That says it all.

You would have been better off running Vladimir Putin and Angelina Jolie on the Dem ticket. At least you’d have a couple truly smart people running who’d actually have better policies.

Again, Comment, it’s not that Obama “may” bomb Iran. My whole point is that if he believes what he believes, HE HAS NO CHOICE. Can you people get that through your heads? He is WRONG on Iran. Period. Just as much as Bush and McCain are.

The ONLY difference is that he thinks he can pull it out with “diplomacy” – except he’s got no “HOW” there, because there IS NO “how” there.

The only possible solution to Iran is to make a deal whereby they get full-scale nuclear energy assistance from the US and others – as the NPT requires its signatories to do – coupled with Iran ratifying the Additional Protocol, while at the same time bringing up Israel in front of the UN and demanding they do the same (which is the only way to convince Iran the US means it.)

And I don’t see Obama doing that. Do you? Evidence?
observerfrommars Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:00 am
If Granholm debated Palin — it would be a pretty hot debate. Segolene Royal from France is the only stateswoman who could defeat either one in a hotness contest.

Apparently you haven’t heard of Spain.
55 Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 1:10 am
Hack is bonkers, as I once told him on Matt’s old blog, but I like him.

But his political instincts are pretty bad, like when he said the pictures of Palin with a gun would seal the election for McCain.
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 4:28 am
Wait a minute, 55, I don’t remember that. When did I say that? Are you sure that was me? Doesn’t sound like something I would have said. If I did, Google can’t find it under “Sarah Palin gun Yglesias”.

Besides which, I can’t imagine thinking that merely having a gun-toting babe from Alaska would “seal the election”. Help McCain, maybe – seal it, no.

So unless you’ve got the quote somewhere I can see, I call it as you’re thinking of somebody else.
El Cid Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 7:54 am
Another economist outlines the stakes, based on the now-announced and likely consensus:

If the House Republicans won’t vote for the Paulson-Dodd-Frank plan, then the Democrats should not either. They should write the best bill possible–which I think is the Swedish model–pass it, and send it to Bush to sign.

Krugman agrees. And the Swedish model, by the way, is temporary nationalization.
rea Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 8:58 am
I can’t imagine thinking that merely having a gun-toting babe from Alaska would “seal the election”. Help McCain, maybe – seal it, no.

What would “seal the election” and end the McCain campaign would be pictures in Palin carrying a gun in a way that made it obvious she did not know how to handle one . . .
SLC Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 10:02 am
It would appear that some folks still don’t know about Mr. Richard Steven Hacks’ antecedents and take him seriously. Just to bring them up to speed, Mr. Hack is a convicted bank robber who spent 9 years in the federal birdcage in Leavenworth, Ka. for his crime. He entered a bank in San Francisco with a loaded gun and informed the bank tellers therein that it would be a good idea to empty their cash drawers on pain of termination with extreme prejudice. He then exited the bank and attempted to board a bus to make his getaway whereon he was apprehended. He claims that his purpose for robbing he bank was to obtain funds to assist him in his plan to overthrow the government. I have claimed that he was, in actuality, attempting to obtain funds to feed his smack habit, which he has vehemently denied. Since his release from the slammer, he has, on Mr. Yglesias’ previous blog, advocated the assassination of police officers and made threats against fascist talk show host Michael Savage (nee Weiner). All in all, not a very sanitary character.
S.G.E.W. Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:04 am
Mr. Hack is a convicted . . . .

Hey now, he’s done the time and is now a free man. Past criminal convictions should not, necessarily, be held against someone in a free marketplace of ideas.

What should be held against Mr. Hack are the rather bonkers comments he proudly posts here, so consistently, vehemently, and declaratively.

Still, he’s better than a 9/11 nutjob. But not as entertaining as an Elvis conspirator.
SLC Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:25 am
Re S.G.E.W.

I would agree with Mr. S.G.E.W. if Mr. Hack had shown remorse for his crime and admitted that he was wrong. He has not only not shown such remorse but has bragged about his crime and his incarceration. He has acted as if he is some kind of big hero. This is, of course, in addition to his threats against Mr. Savage and his advocacy of assassination of police officers.
55 Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 12:53 pm
Hmm RSH, maybe you’re right. Forgive me, it must have been someone/somewhere else!
Richard Steven Hack Says:
September 28th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
No problem, 55. Everybody makes mistakes. Mine are just bigger than most! I do vaguely remember somebody saying something like what you referenced, but I can’t remember who and I’m too lazy to look it up.

S.G.E.W.: Look up SLC’s history at the old Atlantic blog. It’s probably in Google’s cache. He’s a Zionist freak who advocates exterminating all the Palestinians. Compared to him, I’m a rational saint.

And nothing I say here is “bonkers”, certainly not on foreign policy. I argue the same arguments put forth by Philip Giraldi, Scott Ritter, William Lind, and numerous other military and intelligence experts who view an Iran war as extremely likely and a complete disaster, and the same for any extension of the war in Afghanistan to Pakistan. If you disagree with those positions, best have some arguments to back it up.
vancy Says:
September 29th, 2008 at 1:45 am
RE: comment #3, guess that explains why Goldberg has a beard
battery Says:
January 18th, 2009 at 11:42 pm
laptop battery
laptop batteries
tramadol Says:
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:37 am
tramadol
Incredible site!
brand viagra Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:53 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
buy cheap viagra
cheap viagra Says:
April 9th, 2009 at 9:08 am
Great site, Good info viagra
viagra cheap Says:
April 14th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Incredible site!
viagra
szskra Says:
April 19th, 2009 at 8:59 am
bbhHTu uwwldxxuzgfx, [url=http://yjhajpnnixqv.com/]yjhajpnnixqv[/url], [link=http://jhcvejfvaksz.com/]jhcvejfvaksz[/link], http://dzborqkpmgyj.com/

Matt Yglesias

Phoning It In

48 Responses to “Phoning It In”

Blogroll