On a McCain presidency

Just an opinion but I'm thinking that if on the magic day in January that McCain would become president--his would almost certainly from day 1 be a lame duck presidency. Whether or not the republican congressional and senate can limit their losses or not--they still have much more territory to defend and will still lose some seats. In the current climate--with the control of committees and subcommittees in the hands of democrats in both houses it will be almost impossible for McCain (as it has been for Bush in the last 2 years) to fulfill any of his promises legislatively unless the Democratic party decides to cooperate with him. I don't think that is likely to happen very often. Previous to '94 and the Gingrich revolution even with a fairly corrupt democratic led congress there was much more in the way of cooperation between the two parties. That changed in the years between '94 and '06 when the republican majority routinely killed democratic party inspired legislation in committee. In the runup to the last midterm election current House speaker Pelosi promised to revert back to the pre '94 policies. This has not altogether been the case though and the former majority (now minority) members have railed against the new majority for doing pretty much what they had done while they were the majority. Whether duplicitous on the part of Pelosi or not it is understandable considering how the GOP had run congress during their 12 years of control.

What power that leaves McCain is limited. He has some excecutive power to make certain decisions. He has the power to name new justices to the Supreme Court which then have to be approved in the Senate. I could see a democratically controlled Senate rallying around the issue of Roe v. Wade--perhaps even grabbing the odd moderate like Sen. Spector and blowing holes in McCain's appointments. So even that may be limited.

What else it may mean for the electorate is that current problems are neglected for 4 more years. Most likely no new energy policy--we will continue down the same road we are on because there is no other because there will be no agreement. We will be ever more dependent on foreign based energy suppliers. Costs of education and Health Care will continue to rise. The same economic and trade policies will continue. More jobs losses, more home foreclosures, more banks and financial institutions going bankrupt or looking for bailouts.

A column from Thomas Friedman today:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/14/opinion/14friedman.html

For a long time, Americans tended to prefer a Democratic Congress and a Republican Presidency. It shouldn't have worked, but it did, more or less.

If McCain does win, the real question, in my mind, will be: just how much of George Bush's legacy, in terms of mis-management and amoral behavior, will he repudiate -- not out loud, but in practice?

He really has no reason to love Bush and his people, especially given how they treated him in the 2000 primaries. So, while liberals will not like him as President, he might be very different from just a third-term George Bush.

What exactly would a McCain presidency entail anyway? The only original "idea" (i.e., something that diverges from the Bush presidency) I've heard from him is the "League of Democracies", which I suspect would turn out to be very much like the "Coalition of the Willing" (which turned out to be not much of a coalition and mostly unwilling). It seems very unlikely that European powers (the UK included) who are committed to existing international institutions, namely, the UN, the International Court, the Geneva conventions, etc., would sign on to such a thinly veiled end run around such institutions. Hence, this "League" would likely be staffed by nations like Poland and Georgia (which, according to McCain's Vice President, should gain NATO membership) who will claim a larger share of American foreign aid largesse (such as the 1 billion dollars that suddenly materialized for Georgia recently). The threat to boot Russia from the G8 is a non-starter as well. McCain says he'll "win" the war in Iraq, but doesn't know when. How long will a Congress controlled by Democrats continue to allow American taxpayers to foot the bill? I suspect he'll be on a short leash in Mesopotamia. Eventually, McCain would have to make good on his threat to bomb Iran if the nuclear program isn't suspended, otherwise the USA will look weak. Who knows how much collateral damage will be inflicted if this comes to pass.

In terms of domestic politics, as a lame duck in his only term, McCain could feel liberated and engage with his alleged maverick side. That would mean true bipartisanship with congressional houses controlled by Democrats. This would bode well for immigration reform (McCain could tell nativist Tancredoites and the vigilantes patrolling the Mexican border to stuff it). It could mean he proposes non-activist (i.e., non-Scalian, non-Federalist Society) jurists for appointment to the Supreme Court. It could mean he reverses his support for the Bush tax cuts.

What is more likely is that McCain's non-maverick side will win out. As his selection of Palin indicates, he feels obligated to the theological fringe of the Republican base, as well as the Reaganite dead-enders. This means he'd propose jurists for the Supreme Court who pass the Perkins-Dobson-Norquist-LaHaye-Weyrich litmus test. He'll waste time trying to jam through more tax cuts to the highest income bracket and offer school vouchers as his major social policy initiative. He’d speak tendentiously about the evils of “gay marriage” and the Darwinian threat to God without doing anything about it (or perhaps the culture warrior dossier would be assigned to the Vice President’s office). Energy policy will continue to be directed by the same people Dick Cheney relied upon during the Bush years.

On the positive side (yes there is one!), Democrats will likely gain more seats during the 2010 midterm elections as a consequence of a McCain presidency.

It's a good question Doug. He has been walking a fine line between supporting Bush 2 policies and distancing himself from the Bush 2 presidency. Not an easy task and despite often stammering his way through speeches and policy statements--he has managed that quite well. He has not run on his own issues so much as on critiquing issues raised by Obama and his campaign.

As for differences vis-a-vis McCain and Bush some things aren't (even at this late stage) so clear to me. For instance McCain on economic policy has stated numerous times that he's for cutting taxes, cutting spending and banishing earmarks. It seems straightforward enough maybe for many but it is not very specific in reality at least in the case of spending cuts and one wonders even on his cutting of earmarks he just means congressional earmarks. Checking out the OMB's numbers for 2008 that comes to about $16 and a half billion dollars--not an insignificant sum but considering the trillions of dollars in debt we owe hardly significant in that respect. Of that earmarked money 6.6 billion went into defense related projects--3.7 billion into energy and water related projects--1.2 billion inot military construction and Veteran Administration projects--not the kind of earmark cutting that will tend to be that popular. Even so if he does cut taxes and spending how are we going to pay down our multiple trillions of dollars of debt? or are those debts going to continue to rise and we simply ignore the problem? Balancing budgets is supposed to be a conservative's strength is it not? Your fellow texan Phil Gramm--one of--if not his most influential economic advisers does not give me good vibes. He is a maximum free trader, anti-union, anti-regulation corporatist all for bailing out the big guys when they screw up but disdainful of the little guy (or the whiners as he put them recently).

On energy policy as well--he seems to be sticking to the status quo of centerpiecing it around more oil production either in Anwar or in US territorial waters. That is the main thrust of his speechmaking--he does bring up other things at times such as nuclear, wind, solar, electric cars etc. but whether he's serious about taking real first steps towards energy independence is very much open to question. He may be most serious about building nuclear plants--but building those reactors brings with it a whole range of problems chief among them public reaction, finding sites and prohibitive construction costs--getting localities to agree to it, getting congress to appropriate the money while at the same time cutting out earmarks fairly and squarely whether for democratic or republican districts seems to me even in these times to be a pipedream.

On the so-called Bush doctrine. Palin stumbled through it the other night. Are pre-emptive strike, regime change, meddling in the affairs of other governments particularly those considered not as friendly off the table? Truthfully Obama himself has stated more than once that if intelligence located OBL in Pakistan he would attempt to take him out. Apart from that however Obama seems more intent on focusing on diplomacy than in using military force to prove a point. I find it hard to differentiate Bush and McCain on this. McCain's rhetoric throughout the campaign in terms of foreign affairs towards not so friendly regimes has been almost always belligerent. It certainly appeals to a lot of people but it is not a rational way of dealing with all such crises. A McCain presidency as far as I can tell right now may lead to military showdowns with Iran, Russia, North Korea, Venezuela/Bolivia--who knows maybe even China. His VP choice if he does not last through the term should give a lot of pause for concern. Being able to see the coast of Russia from a remote (deserted?) Alaskan island is not a qualification nor is being defacto head of the Alaskan national guard. She has hardly even been outside the country. As well giving Israel a pass for future attacks without any qualification at all should set off alarm bells. Numerous Middle Eastern countries I'm sure have taken note of that. Her terms of mayor and governor--replete with numerous firings of local and state officials sometimes replaced with friends and high school classmates is right out of the GWB playbook.

Personal character traits aside these are all examples (at least for me) of why McCain is very much likely to be like the guy he is trying to replace.

Well, here are some headlines from 2010:

"US and Iraqi Troops Stalled in Invasion of Iran, Worry About Stability of Iraqi Allies"

"Gas to Hit $10.00 a Gallon, Instability in Middle-East, Large Royalty Payments to Alaska To Blame"

"Unemployment at 10%: White House Says 'Stop Whining'"

"President Palin on Russian Invasion of Armenia: 'Where's Armenia?'"

The title of this thread makes me weep. I heard Obama speak yesterday and he was so sensible, so open in his thinking, so free of rhetoric. It was as different a speech as I have ever heard from a politician. The thought of a President McCain who does the same ole' Bush song and dance makes me very very sad.

Well, here's a hunch as to what the McCain presidency might look like.

Continuation of Bush tax cuts: DOA. As the deficit teeters towards $550B annually, including the costs of baling out Freddie and Fannie, they are unaffordable and the Democrats block them.

Continued rolling disasters in the financial markets. McCain proposes further deregulation. This is rejected -- congress and the public in general is fed up with financiers causing the economy to be wildly unstable.

Growing recession in at least through 2010. Deadlock over stimulus bills. McCain and Republicans insisting on a return to Bush tax cuts, Democrats focused on "middle class" tax relief, funding the states to maintain services during recession, and infrastructure rebuilding.

Compromise on energy: McCain and Republicans consent to renewing the tax incentives for alternative energy in exchange for the lifting of offshore drilling bans and renewed federal sponsorship of nuclear power. Gasoline reaches $6 per gallon. The dollar buys a Euro for $1.95. Natural gas powered cars become popular, raising the price so that refining gas from coal tar becomes prohibitively expensive.

No progress on health care. McCain proposals to end tax credits for employer financed health care are rejected by the Democratic congress. Democratic proposals go nowhere because of the problem of Senate Republican filibuster followed by a McCain veto.

Nothing done about global warming. Continued La Nina conditions moderate the effect of global warming in temperate latitudes temporarily, while storing latent heat that will lead to sudden temperature jumps in 2012 as El Nino returns. Famines in Bangladesh, Malaysia, and much of eastern Africa and food price spikes leading to rioting in the Ukraine, Georgia, and the Philippines.

Israeli strikes on Iran have limited effect on slowing the Iranian nuclear program. The Israeli settlement program accelerates under the influence of the Likud government. US incursions into Pakistan from Afghanistan are extended. A caretaker Shiite/Kurd government in Iraq continues, as elections are deferred indefinitely. The government attempts to arrest and disarm the Sunni militias that participated in the Sunni Awakening. Violence returns to Sunni areas. IED and suicide bombing attacks against US forces by Shiite militias escalate sharply after US support for the Israeli strike on Iran.

Russians cuts off all natural gas provision to Estonia and Latvia in an attempt to bring down the ruling governments. The US is caught in a fuel crisis as Iran slows production of fuel oil in response to the Israeli strike, and so both NATO and the US are helpless to do anything about Russia's move. After a winter without heat, the Estonians and Latvians cave to Russian demands for pliant national unity governments.

Something like that. Of course, a bunch of these things could happen if Obama is in office too.

#7--that is part of the point for starting this thread. One of John McCain's claims is he can work across the aisle with democrats. At best that will be limited (Lieberman doesn't count for much anymore and anyway who knows maybe Joe would be part of his cabinet--the blue dog democrats in congress may be more conservative but they believe in paygo meaning that if the money isn't there to appropriate they don't support the bill no matter how dear it is to them--they IMO are the largest fiscally conservative bloc in congress) and even moreso if and when he starts vetoing legislation the democrats are sure to try and push through whether it is in health, education, energy--things that are all very important to ordinary americans whichever way they vote. Whether those veto's come because of earmarks or because they have little input from the republican side doesn't really matter. I think there is the possibility of many showdowns and now and again because the majorities are likely to be larger they will override his veto's. Mostly though I would think there will be gridlock with a McCain administration putting their hopes in reversing some of the democratic gains in this election during the midterm 2010 elections but if the economy really tanks in the meanwhile those hopes might be ill founded. Basically I think we may be looking at even more gridlock than we've become used to seeing--with the potential for the collapse of more financial institutions, with growing debt in trade for sure if not the government budget, with more shrinking of the dollar's value with one branch of the government Congress 180' degrees opposed to the other two the executive and the Court (if McCain gets his majority--that would as I've said above be a big battle as well). As ineffectual as the current administration has been I think another republican administration is likely to be even moreso and not necessarily because McCain isn't more capable than Bush 2. He is though the wrong man at the wrong time.

I suspect Obama will still win, and I know it will not be the end of the world. And the same if McCain wins. Cheer up, liberals.

When I was about eight years old, we had the 1952 elections, Eisenhower vs Stevenson. My parents were ardent New Deal Democrats, and so, of course, was I: even at that age, I could tell Stevenson was kind and intelligent and educated ... whereas Eisenhower was dull, plodding, and probably a war-monger. And of course the Republicans themselves were Evil Incarnate.

I was devastated when Eisenhower won. The universe seemed awry. How could it have happened? How could the American people have been so stupid and hateful and backward? But life went on.

If McCain wins, I can absolutely promise you that he will deeply disappoint us conservatives on many issues, so take comfort from that.

I hope you're right, Doug. But you might understand the trepidation of some of us who tried to console ourselves after swallowing the bitter pill of the 2000 election by saying, "Hey, wait and see. At least the new guy is calling himself a 'compassionate conservative'"...

Not to get me wrong I still see it as the Democrat's election to lose--it is much closer to my liking though than it should be. Having been born in 1957 during Eisenhower's presidency there is not much I can say about those times--I no doubt had my hands full just learning how to walk and talk.

With the collapse today of both Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch coming hard on the heels of the government takeover of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and the prior collapse of Bear Stearns we seem to be heading into darker and darker economic times. CEO's and financial gurus who in the past preached against the regulation of the markets look now to Uncle Sam for assistance and/or bailouts. Whatever papers, security holdings, pensions, 401 K plans may be involved in today's collapse as well as good old stocks and bonds. Does the government have much choice other than to print up more more money--thus devaluing the dollar just that little bit more--move in and start regulating those failing corporations as they should have been doing all along? I don't think Eisenhower was dealing with this kind of issue but maybe I'm wrong. The economy at least to my eyes looks very grim at the moment. To remention the aforementioned McCain economic adviser Phil Gramm--he is very much a purveyor of 'the economy knows best what's good for it so the less regulation right down to none at all the better' notion.

Again if there was more diversification of our economy this might be something that we could ride through more easily. We've put all our chips however into the service and financial sectors. We need to rebuild our manufacturing and industrial capacaties. We will need then also to be able to keep them here--if necessary through legislation, written into trade agreements and/or tarrifs etc.

I think lriley has a good point. We need smart leaders now, because we are so far in the hole, and McCain's official policy -- not that he understands economics at all, as far as I can tell -- is to keep digging.

But I think there is another reason why this election is a turning point.

In some important ways, the nation is much weaker than in the 50s. You know, Eisenhower was basically a decent guy who spoke about his opponents with respect, who believed in habeus corpus, and who worried about the military industrial complex. Modern day Republicans are not like that. They view liberals as fools and traitors, and they say so. So to the extent that they rule the nation, we as liberals are not part of that nation. When Newt Gingrich organized the Republican takeover of congress in 1994, he trained a cadre of republican officeholders and taught the arts of slander and pretense. He explicitly said that if you disagree with an opponent, you should call his viewpoint a lie. Not a mistake, a lie. And he talked about developing "shield issues", in which one could pretend to be compassionate when one's program was just the opposite. Then we have The Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, which are consciously propagandist organizations with no intellectual honesty. And then you have Fox News, and Ann Coulter, and Michael Savage, and Karl Rove.

We could hope McCain would be different -- but judging by his current campaign, that seems unlikely.

Perhaps if McCain had won in 2000 things would not be as bad as they are now. The '08 McCain does seem very much different to me as well--whatever the case and desplite the scandal plagued Clinton White House those times seem much more innocent now. As bad as the Palin choice is--at least as qualification for the job goes I think the Gibson interview shows very much that she has a lot of catching up to do--the fact again that Phil Gramm is the economic adviser should not be ignored. This is the guy who wrote much of the legislation to deregulate and take away the oversight on the financial markets that are melting down right now. In 2000 he snuck 262 pages of this very same legislation into an 11,000 page House appropriations bill right before the Senate's christmas break. This is the guy who may be running the McCain economy.

Whew, is McCain ever ignorant of how finance works:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/18/mccain-says-sec-chairman-should-be...

None of the dangerous lending and financing practices that triggered the collapse are under the control of the SEC chairman.

This is almost as dumb as that other McCain idea to create another 9/11 commission to conduct an investigation of the financial collapse. There are no mysteries to be investigated. Every economist and financier knows what happened. There is no need for a detective effort.

Thomas Frank had a pretty good one-liner at the bookstore last night: If McCain gets in, it won't be George Bush's third term, it will be Herbert Hoover's second term.

Today's must-read:

John McCain: Dead Man Walking?

#15:

From that blog: I am not a doctor and have no medical training, but at that time I worked in a major cancer clinic and I saw skin cancer daily.

Yep, she sure sounds qualified to remark on the state of McCain's health. I guess those doctors from the Mayo Clinic who put out a statement on his health are incompetent or lying. They obviously don't have the medical knowledge that she does. It's all a huge conspiracy. Rabble rabble.

BTW, the blogger seems to be (intentionally or unintentionally) misinterpreting the report that the surgeons removed some lymph nodes while they were at it. This was merely a precaution. The lymph node dissection showed that the cancer had not spread. McCain's melanoma in 2000 was a Stage IIa. Some jackass saying that it really must be III or IV does not make it so.

If you're not convinced, see here.

#14>

You call McCain "ignorant of how finance works".

It's funny how people with only one house sound so bitter.

>15 AsYouKnow_Bob:, 16. Video link at end of Dead Man Walking is worth a look: MDs on melanoma and news coverage on unusual release conditions of McCain's health records.

http://therealmccain.com/doctors/

#17 how many of those houses were bought and paid for by John and not Cindy?

#16:

From that New York Times article:

“With melanoma, a patient is never completely clear,” said Dr. Shapiro, the N.Y.U. expert.

If melanomas do recur, standard treatment options are limited for many to surgery and a difficult form of chemotherapy. The chances of long-term survival diminish.

A three-hour review of his medical records =/= a release of his medical records.

A thousand pages of medical records? That they've promised to release after election day? The McCain campaign is obviously hiding something unfavorable to their candidate.

The Social Security actuarial tables say that a man of McCain's age in average health has a 15% chance of dying within four years. McCain is not in average health.

I am seriously concerned about McCain's chances of living past January 20th, 2013. Ignoring the high chances of this possibility does not do the republic any good at all.

geneg>

I'll bet if you asked him he wouldn't know.

Incidentally, do they make more than $5 million a year or are they "middle" class?

#20: I wasn't discounting his age. I was saying that that blog was pure idiocy.

Tell me this, though. Do you, or do you not believe that the Mayo Clinic doctors are lying about McCain's health?
http://www.johnmccain.com/mccainrecords/
From the statement: At the present time, Senator McCain enjoys excellent health and displays extraordinary energy. While it is impossible to predict any person's future health, today I can find no medical reason or problems that would preclude Senator McCain from fulfilling all the duties and obligations of President of the United States.

Yes, speculating without facts in hand is not fully credible. As has been said in another context, however: "Is it wrong to speculate? It would be wrong not to."

I believe that disclosure of medical records is now SOP for presidential candidates. That McCain has not done so is... interesting. That he has announced that he'll let us see his records only after Election Day is alarming.

People need to understand this is NOT a race between Obama and McCain, but Obama and Palin. I noticed last night that McCain looks terrible. The campaign is really wearing on him, and given his current, obviously uninformed, statements about the world and the economy, I think he'd be crushed, totally, by the Presidency.

If he's elected, Sarah Palin will be president before 2011. How's that for a little left wing fear mongering? Two can play that game.

More importanly how McCain envisions how health care in the United States might follow in the footsteps of our very successful financial markets.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/19/mccain-on-banking-and-health/

Just follow the link in Krugman's article and you'll find a just published piece written by McCain himself in apparently his own words which seem to follow closely enough a policy position going back to at least February. What the health care world needs is more deregulation just like the kind he and his good buddy Phil Gramm will provide should the public be so good to elect John and Sarah in November. Here's the February piece:

http://money.cnn.com/2008/02/18/news/newsmakers/tully_gramm.fortune/index.htm

To note--so much of classic republican philosophy--I'll be careful not to use 'conservative' because I think it is anything but--in the past 8 years has been blown up--mostly in the public's face for most of the people to blame may be embarrassed and slink off into the shadows now but they'll do okay--it's the public that will pay. Their theories on foreign and economic policies are completely trashed.

I believe that disclosure of medical records is now SOP for presidential candidates.

Really? Why do you believe that? Kerry didn't release his full medical records. Bush didn't. Obama hasn't. Biden hasn't yet.

I can think of some perfectly rational, non-scary reasons why McCain wouldn't want to release his medical records to the world, btw.

Point conceded.

Why do you believe that?
I thought that from a superficial reading of the news: I knew Obama's cholesterol scores had been in the news, I've heard Bush's vitals; so I've assumed that the release of medical records was now general practice.

A quick Google shows that the SOP is to release summaries, and I stand corrected.

Trust me, I DO NOT want a personalized tour of McCain's hemorrhoids.

You're a gracious fellow, AYKB. And I'm sure we can both agree that McCain probably has more of a chance of kicking it than most presidential candidates. It's just that time of the election season where I'm weary of most things being blown out of proportion--including every yahoo who ever worked in a doctor's office who's out there preaching that McCain will be collapsing at his inauguration. :)

Gene, reminds me of this remark from McCain's records. Warning: the preceding link discusses McCain's buttocks. Ensuing Daily show clip here.

I really hate to divert this thread from the fascinating discussion of McCain's medical records, as diagnosed by some chatty blogger. (That's almost as good as Bill Frist diagnosing the condition of Terri Schiavo's brain damage from the Senate floor).

Keith Naughton and Hilary Shenfield at Newsweek decided to find out if the candidates' car ownership patterns mirrored their home ownership. The result is All the Candidates' Cars.

It turns out that the McCains have 13 cars. The Obamas have one.