I thought I’d seen everything with Bob Dole’s blundering “I-deserve-to-be-elected-because-it’s-my-turn” schtick in 1996. He had no message. There were literally dozens of things that could have been used in opposition to then-incumbent President Bill Clinton (not the least of which were Hillary’s failed putsch of medical care, the beginning of what would be an eight-year string of scandals, and the public’s throw-the-bums-out sentiment in the 1994 Congressional elections that gave the Republicans control of Congress for the first time in decades). 

It didn’t matter. Dole used none of these. His timing was off from the get-go. He never mustered any momentum – much less enthusiasm – among conservatives, and he was trounced in November.

McCain’s “strategies” (if you can call them that) and his timing are starting to feel eerily familiar. He seems to have no sense of the public’s sentiment. This is either a failure of his advisors, or it is his own impenetrability. Either way, it is hurting him badly.

Case in point – muzzling Sarah Palin days after a mesmerizing performance at the Republican National Convention. Just when the public – especially the voting public – especially the undecided voting public – needed to hear more from and about Governor Palin, she was whisked off somewhere in a fashion reminiscent of Buckingham Palace’s clandestine preparations of a bride for the Prince of Wales.

Second example: as the financial markets were in meltdown two weeks ago, McCain announced that he was “suspending his campaign” to go to Washington and deal with the crisis. Even supporters found themselves wondering, huh?  First of all, no one expected the bailout talks to last more than a few days. Was attending to the business of governance for a day or two or three really a “suspension” of his campaign? Instead of lending gravitas, it just made McCain look silly – particularly when his campaign was “unsuspended” just a day or two later. It also allowed Obama to score points with his pithy observation that a president should be able to do more than one thing at a time.

Now – and this failure is the most critical of all – McCain appears to be allowing Obama and the Democrats to spread their false and propagandistic version of what caused the banking collapse, utterly uncontested. Instead of telling the public the truth about how two Democratic Presidents and Democrats in Congress manipulated the financial markets, threatened lenders, allowed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to plunder securities, and ignored warnings of impending collapse; instead of hammering home the inexplicable conflicts of interest between Congressman Barney Frank’s position as Chairman of the House Financial Services Committee and his lover’s position at Fannie Mae; instead of showing the hypocrisy of Obama’s receipt of the second-largest campaign contributions from Fannie Mae – McCain has now decided that the public should reconsider Obama’s affiliations with the Reverend Jeremiah (“God damn America”) Wright and unrepentant bomber and domestic terrorist William (“I’d do it all again”) Ayers – issues that were in the news months ago.

And once again, McCain’s and Palin’s supporters are left scratching their heads. And writing their articles and blogs. And hosting their radio and television shows. Watching the McCain campaign flounder, and reading and listening to conservative media, reminds me of being at a pee-wee football game, where a confused youngster has, to his own amazement, gotten the ball, and is now headed the wrong way down the field, while well-meaning parents are pointing and hollering, “It’s that way! The goal is that way!”

While I agree that Obama’s associations are profoundly disturbing, and tell us plenty about his world view and what his goals for government are, the fact is that the public is fixated on the economy at the moment. 

It would be one thing if there were no story for McCain to tell. But there is. And McCain and Palin need to tell this narrative to the public. I have personally had conversations with any number of friends and colleagues who were stunned and appalled when confronted with the role of Democratic congressmen in the banking collapse. The National Republican Congressional Committee has a powerful ad that shows the Dems in deep denial. The very same Democrats who are now blaming the Bush administration, while clamoring for even more control over our markets, our financial institutions, our businesses.  The truth of these messages can convert people wavering on the issue of the economy, and perhaps leaning towards Obama’s seductive siren song of comforting government control.

Why isn’t Team McCain moving the ball down the field on this one? It’s a simple message: These guys have screwed up enough! Don’t take our word for it - we’ve got it on tape. They’ve already cost us $850 billion. Why on earth would you put them in charge of anything else?

As with so many other issues, the narrative on the economy favors McCain and Palin. Now if they’d only tell it. It’s that way, John and Sarah. The goal is that way.

From: *****@*******.net
Sent: Saturday, October 04, 2008 5:04 AM
To: Hollis, Laura
Subject: Townhall.com Columnist Mail for Laura Hollis: Re: And Then What?

Laura, this is a great article and a must read and a great act-upon  message  for Americans . This election is  pivotal and the one person who must get that message is John McCain . So far he has been  stuck in the mud.  Just why is it that he does not appear to understand as you and Thomas Sowell do why he must hit home  on the issue of "what next"? Obama's election  puts our country at very great risk. How in the world did we get to this  point? McCain will be the next President if he will get out and explain to Americans how we did and just why reform is  now the primary issue of our time. The alternative is ghastly to consider. Thanks. ** in AZ

Big kudos to columnist John Hawkins for his hilarious article today.  (And not just because he, too, quotes Thomas Sowell.)  Here's an excerpt from his column, entitled, "The Death of Common Sense in America":

"...large portions of our country, including many of our representatives in Congress, have lost sight of conclusions so skull splittingly obvious that fifty years ago, Americans of both political parties would have agreed upon them almost unanimously."

John Hawkins' Common Sense Political Test: Does YOUR Candidate Support These Principles?

1.  When you borrow money, it does eventually have to be paid back.

2.  You shouldn't buy a house you can't afford.

3.  Nobody owes you a living.

4.  It's not justice when the rulings of judges depend on ideology and personal preferences, not the Constitution.

5.  If we set up a tax system that puts all the taxes on the people at the top, they'll eventually, one way or the other, find a way to stop paying the check -- whether it be through loopholes, deliberately earning less money, or just leaving the country. [Or, Hollis version: You can't keep demonizing the most productive members of our society, all the while screaming you need them to make more, and crippling their ability to do it.]

6.  Families are the building block of our society and the government should be extremely careful when it passes legislation that could negatively impact the family structure.

7.  People come before animals. [Pro-life codicil: Babies are "people."  Yes, that means babies still in the womb.]

8.  You reap what you sow.

9.  It's good for America to have a patriotic populace.

10.  Many other countries aren't "nice" and don't "wish us well."

11.  There is no such thing as a "free" lunch.

12.  People who do a bad job shouldn't be rewarded for it.

13.  When you lie, your credibility should suffer for it.

14.  You don't have a "right" to other people's property.

15.  You are the person primarily responsible for taking care of yourself.

 

Dr. Sowell, who is one of the greatest minds of our time, has written a number of books that are breathtaking in their ability to cut through rhetoric and spin, and clearly explain economic, social, and political realities.  All of his books are worth reading (and I’m working on it).  But the one that comes to mind right now is Applied Economics.  In it, Sowell describes what he calls, “one stage thinking” – decision-making based on immediate (and often politically-calculated) impulses, but with little or no thought to what will happen thereafter.

I’ve come to call this the “And then what?” analysis.  And I’ve been asking this question a lot over the past few days, as we have watched the financial meltdown on Wall Street unfold.  In all the discussion about the now $800 billion bailout, I have heard virtually no discussion about what decisions will be made, what policies will be adopted (or abandoned) to ensure that this will not happen again.

The current financial crisis reminds me of the heated debate we saw last year over the proper legislative response to illegal immigration.  Once it was revealed that the U.S. was home to perhaps 12 million illegal immigrants, some politicians called for immediate deportation.  Others protested that that was impossible, discriminatory, or prohibitively expensive.  My personal thought was that while we could probably absorb 12 million new citizens, no one was addressing the real question: even if we granted the 12 million who are here amnesty, then what?  Conversely, even if we somehow managed to deport all those who are here illegally, then what?

In other words, it doesn’t make a damn bit of difference what we do about those individuals who are here now, unless we take steps to ensure that 12 million more – or 20 million – or 35 million – don’t descend on our doorstep.  Because even if it is true that we can absorb those who are already here, it is also true that we cannot do that indefinitely.  But what have we done to remedy the situation?  Nothing.  And so people pour across our borders.

So it is with the proposed $800 billion bailout plan.  It is riddled with uncertainty.  It may salvage the economy, or it may not.  Perhaps the economy could survive and rebound without it.  And perhaps not.  What is certain, however, is that we cannot continue to bail out failing institutions.  And as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have made clear, this is especially true when the institution we are being asked to bail out is our own government.  So, let’s say we somehow manage to come up with $800 billion.  This time.  Then what?

The real issue is not how we spend our money today, but what we will allow our government to do tomorrow.  Without a change in government’s attitude about spending, not only will this situation repeat itself; it will be much, much worse.

For proof, one need only read the report issued by the Government Accountability Office this past June.  In it, the GAO states that the federal government is “on an unsustainable long-term fiscal path,” driven in part by Social Security, but especially Medicare and Medicaid spending.  The report also warns that the federal government “faces increasing pressures” and yet “a shrinking window of opportunity” in which to solve the problem.  GAO Acting Comptroller General Gene Dodaro tells Congress what they already know: that the government has been borrowing from the Social Security surplus to pay for these increases, but that that surplus will soon be gone (he estimates by 2017– just nine years from now), while the Medicare and Medicaid expenditures will be increasing.  The report says, ominously, “…the challenge is to take action before being forced to do so by some sort of crisis.”

Sound familiar?

The United States is already borrowing staggering amounts from foreign countries to support our debt.  When Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collapse, they will make last week’s bankruptcies of a few investment banks and insurance companies look like a failed bake sale.

This is why it is inscrutable to me when some polls indicate that Democratic presidential nominee Barack Obama is pulling ahead on economic issues.  It was a Democratic president (Jimmy Carter) who got the legislation enacted which created the incentive for banks to lower lending standards.  It was a Democratic president (Bill Clinton) who sent his Justice Department thugs to threaten lenders with discrimination litigation if they did not increase their number of high-risk loans.  And it was the Democratic members of Congress (Barney Frank and Maxine Waters, among others) who dismissed as “alarmist” the warnings of economists and advisors in the early 2000s that allowing Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy and sell these worthless securities would lead to a financial collapse of monumental proportions when the housing bubble burst.

They didn’t listen then, and they aren’t listening now.

This should be a home run issue for Republicans.  They, too, have spent like drunken sailors.  But at least Republicans have a wagon to get back on; the Democrats’ solution for bloated government and profligate spending is more government and more spending.  And Obama would “raise the red standard,” as Spender-in-Chief.  A Democratic President, aided by a Democrat-controlled Congress, would be a fiscal disaster for the United States of unprecedented proportions.

As Thomas Sowell points out so elegantly, politicians tend to think only of the short term - what will get them through the next election.  But the rest of us MUST think about the long term, because we’re the ones who are going to be stuck with it.  If we allow ourselves to be distracted by yesterday’s problem and deluded by today’s promises, we will be blindsided by tomorrow’s crisis.  And tomorrow’s crisis will be catastrophic.

This may not be a pleasant message, but it is a simple one to understand.  If Republicans can communicate these realities to the voters, they have a decent chance of winning the election.  And if they cannot, then what?

God help us.

Dear Senator McCain and Governor Palin:

I realize that you both have advisors, speechwriters, publicists, pollsters and handlers.  But how about taking some advice from a few of us out here in Real World Land?  You know – those of use whose votes you are trying to get?

With six weeks until Election Day, the current meltdown of the financial markets comes at a precarious time.  The way you characterize this situation has the potential to either solidify your current base and persuade independents thirsty for truth, or disappoint conservatives fed up with the “same old same old” and dissolve the lead you have so painstakingly earned in the past few weeks.

 Senator McCain, you captured the public’s attention with the selection of Alaska governor Sarah Palin as your running mate.  Not only did the Democrats underestimate the strength of conservatives’ support for Governor Palin, they were also stunned by the public’s furious reaction to Hollywood’s and the media’s smug and condescending attempts to smear Palin and her family.  And Palin’s unabashedly conservative social views galvanized a previously tepid voter base on the right.  All of this put Obama’s campaign on the defensive, and sent his poll ratings creeping downward, while yours saw a steady – and sometimes even dramatic – increase.

And then came Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the prospect of the $700 billion bailout.  Suddenly, the John McCain who sounded like such a brave conservative three weeks ago is parroting the Left, calling for “more government intervention,” decrying “corporate greed,” and blaming Wall Street.

Within 48 hours, what has happened?  A six-point slip in the polls.  Why?  Here’s my take on it: don’t try to out-Obama Obama.  He’s got 47 years on you.

So what now?  Well, how about this for a strategy instead?  Why not take the same gutsy truth-telling approach to the economic issues that you have been taking on the social and domestic security issues?  Tell the American public the truth: tell them that the crash-and-burn wasn’t caused by greedy financiers, but by government meddling and arm-twisting of the banks and other lenders, essentially forcing them to make bad business decisions by lending to millions of people who were poor credit risks.  Tell the American public that this bad situation was made worse by allowing quasi-government agencies Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to buy and sell these worthless mortgages.

Senator McCain, I can fully understand your desire to be in Washington for the next few days while decisions are made about how best to handle the current crisis.  So why not send Sarah Palin out on the stump for you? 

Let her do what she does so beautifully: connect with the people by telling them the truth.  And who better to get the American public bullish about the economy again than the self-described “pitbull with lipstick”?

If you’re not sure what we want to hear, I’m happy to help out.  Here’s what I’d like to hear Sarah Palin say on your behalf in the next week or so:

“Ladies and gentlemen, Americans will vote Republican in November, because they are fed up with Democrats trying to run their lives and ruin their businesses.   Democrats like Senators Obama and Biden would have you believe that the cause of the sub-prime mortgage collapse and the financial failures of institutions like Lehman Brothers, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is ‘corporate greed,’ unfettered by regulation.  They’re telling you that the cure is ‘more government oversight.’ 

“But the truth is that it was government that caused these financial problems.  It was government that insisted that banks make bad loans to people who were poor credit risks.  It was government that called these bad decisions ‘fair housing,’ even though the lenders they pressured to write the mortgages would eventually lose their shirts, and the homeowners they said they wanted to help would lose their homes.   It was government that insisted that quasi-governmental entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac be able to buy and sell these essentially worthless securities, both driving up the demand for them, and creating a false sense of security behind them.  And when financial writers from respected publications like the Wall Street Journal warned us that these decisions were potentially catastrophic mistakes, it was government calling such warning ‘alarmist.’  ‘Government’ in the form of Democrats like Charles Schumer, Chuck Rangel, Barney Frank, and Maxine Waters.  The same Democrats who are now calling for ‘more government’

“The problem, folks, as John McCain and I and you all know, isn’t too little government interference in our financial markets.  It’s too much.  Left to their own good sense, banks and other financial institutions would have made sensible business decisions, properly secured loans, and prudent investments, as they had before.  And as they will again.  Senator Obama says he wants ‘change’ that will improve the lots of Americans.  Well, we have a change for him:   The best way to improve the prospects of all Americans is to get government out of business, to let businesses be what they should be – profitable sources of valuable goods and services, and not manipulated instruments of misguided social engineering!

“As the politicians and advisors gather in Washington this week, John McCain will bring them a message from the American people.  We will make them understand that Americans will not be fooled.  We will not be fleeced.  And we will not be party to the Democrats’ constant efforts to demonize and undermine the best source of prosperity the world has even seen – honest American enterprise.”

There you go.  True, it’s risky.  It does go against the negative tune everyone else is singing.  It will give the media apoplectic fits.  (Isn’t that enough reason?)  But if you want to truly keep your reputation as a maverick, Senator McCain; if you want to rally independents and fiscal conservatives to your side; and if you want to be the voice of calm reason and positive potential that Americans want in a President, then that’s what we need to hear.  And I, for one, would love to hear Sarah Palin say it.