It’s almost inevitable that someone will base his or her presidential campaign in 2012 on the fact that he or she was an early and vocal opponent of the $700 billion bailout / rescue / giveaway-to-Wall-Street plan. Any ideas who that might be? Get your picks in now and prove your political forecasting skills in about three years.

A list of reps voting no can be found here. Picking Kucinich doesn’t count — he’ll probably run again no matter what.

A few things popped out at me in looking at this vote:

• Check out the title of the bill: “To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide earnings assistance and tax relief to members of the uniformed services, volunteer firefighters, and Peace Corps volunteers, and for other purposes.” (A) That’s a hell of an “other purpose.” (B) This is how we get campaign charges like “you voted against a tax break for the troops!”
• There are TWO members of Congress named Diaz-Balart! And only four Smiths and four Johnsons. FYI, Lincoln Diaz-Balart and Mario Diaz-Balart, both Republicans from Florida, are brothers.
• John McCain could not deliver the McVote. Among GOP representatives whose last name starts with “Mc,” the vote was three for and five against. Overall, the vote was nine McAyes and six McNoes.
• I’m not sure it had ever occurred to me before that the plural of no is noes. If I’ve ever had to pluralize “no” before, I probably used “no’s” — even though that’s a pretty questionable use of an apostrophe.

I’ll put my money on Darrell Issa, just because the odds of a western state Republican running seem pretty high.

This was McCain Chief Strategist Steve Schmidt, speaking today on Meet the Press, on the definition of victory in Iraq:

Here is what victory means in Iraq: It means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its borders and it means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its people, that moves forward on its path to democracy.

[video removed from original source]

That’s a fine definition, except that:

• It’s so vague that it’s impossible to tell when it’s been achieved.
• Even if it could be defined, it would be impossible to know whether those conditions would survive the withdrawal of US troops.
• There is little if any indication that this is a realistic goal any time in the next several decades.
• It begs the question of whether such a "victory" is necessarily in the best interests of the United States and how much we are willing to pay for it.
• It’s probably not something the American people would support as the mission of US troops.
• It’s definitely not what we signed up for in 2003.

When American troops leave, they will not leave in defeat no matter what the situation on the ground in Iraq. We already won the war in Iraq. You can’t win an occupation.

This was McCain Chief Strategist Steve Schmidt, speaking today on Meet the Press, on the definition of victory in Iraq:

Here is what victory means in Iraq: It means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its borders and it means an Iraqi government that is able to protect its people, that moves forward on its path to democracy.

That’s a fine definition, except that:

• It’s so vague that it’s impossible to tell when it’s been achieved.
• Even if it could be defined, it would be impossible to know whether those conditions would survive the withdrawal of US troops.
• There is little if any indication that this is a realistic goal any time in the next several decades.
• It begs the question of whether such a “victory” is necessarily in the best interests of the United States and how much we are willing to pay for it.
• It’s probably not something the American people would support as the mission of US troops.
• It’s definitely not what we signed up for in 2003.

When American troops leave, they will not leave in defeat no matter what the situation on the ground in Iraq. We already won the war in Iraq. You can’t win an occupation.

Great roundtable discussion on today’s This Week. It’s so refreshing to hear smart people talking about important issues without simply yelling at one another. It’s too bad that our presidential candidates can’t look us in the face and explain why we can’t have everything we want.

They ought to play this tape before the next debate and have McCain and Obama add their own thoughts.

Take a look at John McCain’s proposal for health care reform:

While still having the option of employer-based coverage, every family will receive a direct refundable tax credit - effectively cash - of $2,500 for individuals and $5,000 for families to offset the cost of insurance. Families will be able to choose the insurance provider that suits them best and the money would be sent directly to the insurance provider. Those obtaining innovative insurance that costs less than the credit can deposit the remainder in expanded Health Savings Accounts.

If I’m the insurance industry, this just says to me “oh, look — free money. Now we don’t have to worry as much how to keep premiums down because everyone can pay for it.” So for a year or two everyone’s offering plans that come in with premiums around $2,500 per person. (No mention of exclusions, co-pays, and deductibles, by the way.) But what happens as health care costs continue to go up and the premiums are forced higher? Whether the tax credit gets increased or people have to dip deeper into their wallets to make up the difference, either way we end up right back where we started.

You think market forces will keep premiums down? They haven’t yet. Why will they with McCain’s plan?

I actually agree with a lot of the ideas stated on McCain’s health care page, but any system that continues to rely on the current system — dominated by for-profit health insurance plans — is doomed to fail.

The last (for now, anyway) in my series of posts about what is motivating the anti-Obama vote:

• “A Timeline of Barack Obama’s Political Career”

I’ve got mixed feelings about this one. Some of it is pure recitation of commonly accepted facts, and I can’t argue with that. But the blogger also throws in a bunch of opinion, exaggeration, and unsubstantiated accusations. I worry that people are thinking “some of this is obviously true; therefore, the rest of it is probably true as well.”

• “Don’tVoteObama.net”

As with the previous site, it’s hard to know how to respond when someone says “I’m not voting for Obama, and here’s why … just look at this web site.” The graphics at the top of the page — including two photos of Obama in a turban and a morphing of “Obama-Biden” into “Osama Bin Laden” — provoke an instinctive reaction to say “can’t you see that whoever maintains this web site is a bigoted, paranoid lunatic?” But the site contains just enough actual video footage, quotations from mainstream media, and other “real” information that if you simply dismiss the entire site your opponents will accuse you of ignoring the facts, and they’ll have half a case. (OK, maybe less than half a case, but you get the point.)

Conclusion:

Look, I’m not saying a vote for McCain is the definition of insanity. If you believe that abortion is murder, that the Federal government should provide only the services specifically laid out in the Constitution, or the top income earners are already paying too much in taxes, then I don’t expect you to vote for Obama. But if you’re voting against Obama not because you disagree with what he stands for but because of what you’ve heard others say about him, then please, for yourselves and for your country, take the time to consider the sources of your information and your sources’ sources. Question what you read. Ask for proof. Ask whether even John McCain believes these things. Ask if it really matters, even if it is true (like the size of the flag on the side of a plane or a slip of the tongue). Don’t vote for the guy you’d rather have a beer with, or the guy you’d trust to watch your house for the weekend. Vote for the guy who can lead the country in the direction you want it to go.

Continuing my series on the corruption of an otherwise intelligent mind by radical anti-Obama propaganda ….

A couple more web sites that my friend referred me to as evidence of why Obama should not be President:

• “There are 57 Islamic States ….”

This shows a 24-second clip of an address made by Obama at some unknown place and time, presumably during the primary campaign. He says, in part:

I’ve now been in fifty … seven states, I think. One left to go. One left to go. Alaska and Hawaii I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit but my staff would not justify it.

What to make of this comment? There are two explanations. One is that he simply meant to say forty-seven states but that his brain had been so accustomed to saying “fifty states” by that time that he goofed. Or you could conclude, as the blog poster does, that when Obama thinks about states what he’s really thinking about is the Organization of Islamic Conference Member States, of which there seem to be fifty-seven.

Look, making fun of verbal slip-ups (like McCain’s confusion of Sunnis and Shiites) is par for the course. Both sides find a lot of amusement here. But I really have to question the rationality of anyone who seriously thinks that the “57″ comment was a window into Barack Obama’s radical Islamic soul. How can anyone I know think this way?

• “Presidential Candidate Breaks Federal Law”

The law supposedly broken here is one against altering the Seal of the President of the United States. The blogger claims Obama broke law when his campaign created a decoration for his podium that resembled the Presidential Seal. Now you may or may not agree that the Obama seal was good for the campaign. The campaign wasn’t sure, either, and it dropped the logo a few days after its introduction. But to claim with a straight face that this was a violation of federal law and a good reason not to vote for the guy? Please tell me that the real reason you’re anti-Obama is that you make more than $250,000 a year and you don’t want your taxes to go up. I can handle self-interest among my friends, but not lunacy.

I am more worried today about this November’s election than ever before. Because today I got a glimpse into the mind of the anti-Obama voter.

There’s a woman I know from a very red state. She’s a small business IT consultant like me. I’ve met her at several conferences and exchanged a lot of e-mail with her. I have tremendous respect for her business talents and she probably works three or four times harder than I do. She’s educated, she’s intelligent, she’s a model American citizen. And politically, she scares the crap out of me.

I posted a status message on Facebook challenging any of my Facebook friends who did not plan to vote for Obama to explain why. My red state friend responded by comparing Obama to Hitler (seriously!) and pointing to Jeremiah Wright and James Cone as the kind of philosophy we could expect from a President Obama. I challenged her to provide a little more evidence that Obama actually shared any of the radical and inflammatory views espoused by Wright and Cone. She promised to “email [me] some good reading and hopefully [I] will at least investigate the facts for [myself].”

Here is the first bit of “good reading” she sent me:

• “Obama’s Non-Citizen Military Dream” and “Uganda Citizens as United States Soldiers? Feel Safe Yet?”

These two blog posts are commentary on a column by Judi McLeod, a conservative Canadian writer. The column reports — accurately, as far as I can tell — that the United States military was actively recruiting Ugandan citizens at a recent conference in Orlando. Here is McLeod’s take on the situation:

Will Ugandans in the US military feel loyalty to the United States of America or to a president they see as a radical agent of change?

 

Most know about Obama’s ties to Kenya and that co-President Raila Odinga has claimed a tribal kinship with the Illinois senator. 

 

Few realize the fever pitch of Obama support in Uganda, home of UFOs–Ugandans for Obama.

 

Part of the Eastern African region that could some day be included in the United States of Africa, some Ugandans and Kenyans see Obama as much the president of the United States of Africa as he would be the president of the United States of America. 

Wow. First of all, the McLeod column fails to mention that there are already 30,000 non-citizens in uniform, and that hundreds of non-citizens have fought and died for our country. What’s really weird, thought, is that somehow she links these recruiting efforts — devised by the Bush administration!! — to part of some Obama-led conspiracy to merge the United States with Africa.

I wish I could just laugh this stuff off. But this kind of nonsense is actually influencing votes.

Next up: how a slip of the tongue “proves” that Obama is a Muslim.

I write this without knowing anything about what Obama’s focus group or internal polling research shows. I base this only on a few assumptions:

1. The person who wins the election is the person voters like more. It has nothing to do with the issues unless the issue is a real hot button (e.g., something related to crime, religion, or sex).
2. Assumption #1 is a little too simplistic. Voters care a bit about the issues but they can’t be bothered to know anything more than whether a candidate is “for” or “against” or “strong on” or “weak on” issues that can be summed up in one or two words (e.g., “taxes,” “jobs,” “the environment,” “national security,” or “vouchers.”)
3. People buy things that appeal to them on an emotional level, not what people “in the know” tell them to like. (Witness how the highest-grossing movies are often the ones most despised by the critics, or the overwhelming amount of stuff that people put in their mouths that is bad for them.)
4. People buy things that other people like them buy, especially when there is an aspect of “coolness” or “hip-ness” attached to the object (iPhones, Cabbage Patch Kids, Air Jordans).
5. People prefer the devil they know to the devil they don’t know. The “more of the same” attack is not going to work all by itself.

Are Obama’s recent ads doing anything to move people his way base on the above standards? I don’t think so.

“It’s Over”: First shot shows McCain speaking forcefully. Do you really want this as the lead? Reminds me of Dukakis commercial that started with a Bush commercial, only to have Dukakis turn off the TV. Didn’t work then, won’t work now. Rest of ad complains about lobbyists in the White House. Does the concept of lobbyists hit emotional hot buttons? Doubt it. And this doesn’t say anything positive about Obama. The “His Administration” ad has a very similar feel.

“No Maverick”: Again, starts with a positive shot of McCain-Palin and then says “whoa.” Watch the ad with the audio muted. Most of the shots show McCain and Palin looking confident, with big smiles. They look like winners.

“Don’t Know Much”: Better visuals, but voters have shown consistently that they don’t really care whether the President “knows much.” Voters want to see themselves in their President, and most voters don’t know much about how the economy works either. Similar problems plague “Still.”

“Real Change”: At least it’s positive, but scores a zero on emotions. Doesn’t even have background music! Wouldn’t it have been much more powerful if instead of Obama staring at the camera telling voters what they should think, we saw voters telling Obama what they already think?

“Three Bedroom Ranch”: Laundry list. I just watched it twice in a row and I can’t remember all the points he covered. Again it’s pretty low on the emotion spectrum.

“What Kind”: Starts out well, but when it shifts to McCain it goes downhill. Again you’ve got McCain with a big smile on his face as if he knows he did something right. It takes what could be a simple concept — “better education” — and makes it too complicated. Do the voters even know what the Department of Education does? Are we going to see hordes of people in the street shouting “Keep the Department of Education! Keep the Department of Education?” Nope.

“Scranton”: Now we’re talking. Here’s a guy who likes Obama as a person. If a guy who looks like me — yes, I’m saying that race matters and if you think it doesn’t you’re deceiving yourself — if a guy who looks like me likes Obama, then maybe it’s OK for me to like Obama, too. But don’t just have Biden say this stuff. Have a factory worker, a stay-at-home-mom, and a real estate agent say it.

“Dangerous NV”: Close, really close. Love the first line: “It’s gonna be shippped here.” Sounds ominous. Has real people talking and a bunch of unflattering McCain shots. Has a clear, simple message: “McCain is for Yucca Mountain.” But I’d lose the “more of the same” tag line. Yes, it’s true that the Bush administration also supports the nuclear waste dump, but since the project hasn’t actually started yet, I don’t think “more of the same” is really on target.

Obama doesn’t have to work too hard to make some better ads. All he has to do is recycle the ones that got him the nomination in the first place.

“What If?“: The title speaks to possibilities and has an air of excitement. Obama is shown being adored by people who look just like you (voter). He looks like a winner.

“Mother”: The ad starts with “My mother died of cancer at 53.” Can you say emotion? Highlights a huge difference between Obama and McCain in a way that people can remember: “Obama is for health care.”

Obama needs to get his favorable ratings higher. And to the extent that Obama needs to bring McCain down, he can’t keep hitting McCain on issues that don’t resonate with the public or with ads that inadvertently show McCain in a positive light. Come on, Barack. You won our hearts as well as our minds nine months ago. You can do it again.

Hey everybody,

Join me in Manchester, NH, this Saturday, September 13th, for a “Change We Need” Rally with Barack Obama and Joe Biden.

http://nh.barackobama.com/manchesterchange

Here are the details:

    “Change We Need” Rally with
    Barack Obama and Joe Biden

    Veterans Memorial Park
    889 Elm Street
    Manchester, NH

    Saturday, September 13th
    Doors Open: 8:00 a.m.
    Program Begins: 10:30 a.m.

Let me know if you’ll be there … we can go out afterwards for a latte.