In running a campaign, you have controllables, and you have uncontrollables.
Donald Rumsfeld would like a word with you about controllable controllables, uncontrollable controllables, and controllable uncontrollable controllabes.
Controllables are what the candidate says in his speeches; where he appears, who he picks as a running mate, how much money he raises
Isn't raising money kind of an uncontrollable controllable, in that you don't just get to set a figure and say abra cadabra?
In planning your campaign strategy, you must be near perfect in the things you control.
Apparently being 'near perfect' allows for tiny gaffes like suggesting that the Spanish head of state might not be welcome at the White House, because Venezuela is hostile to the U.S. and they speak Spanish there, and they also speak Spanish in Spain, so, well, you do the math.
You also get a free pass if you nominate a religious nut with no foreign policy knowledge or experience, ties to radical separatists, and a history of graft and nepotism as your vice presidential candidate.
Nobody's TOTALLY perfect, right?
But you also must prepare for the things that you don't control.
While campaigning. Once you get elected you can forget all that noise and focus on the fun part of being president, like walking hand in hand with Saudi Princes and congratulating your buddy 'Brownie' on doing a heckuva job (Regardless if said heckuva job was actually done!)
President Bush's administration was mortally damaged by the mishandling of Katrina. It became a symbol of an administration that could do nothing right.
To be fair to the president, it's not like Katrina doesn't have stiff competition in the 'symbols of incompetence' category. ThisThe financial meltdown last week was the Katrina equivalent in this campaign.
Again, to be fair, I think the president gets credit for this one too. I'm not sure you can blame Barack Obama for not having retroactively solved the financial crisis before he became president, although Rush Limbaugh will try his very best.
And it was more than just an uncontrollable event. It was a game-changer.
We are no longer playing 'elect a president.' The contest will now be decided by sudden death beer pong. Obama's objections that this would be unconstitutional, and that McCain is married to a beer magnate are noted. They are overruled. I believe it is your serve, Johnathan McCain.
Whatever else the campaigns want to talk about, nothing will matter more than the perception of "who gets it."
Nobody gets it yet. That's sort of the problem. Oh. Right. You mean nothing will matter except the ability of one of the candidates to attempt to simplify the problem and frame it in a bullshit way so that the American people will think there's an easy solution, even though there's not. Right.
The winner should be the man who appears to understand these financial problems and can convince the country that he can be the "lifeguard" who can rescue ordinary Americans from drowning in this sea of economic uncertainty.
If it's about who the American people would rather see as a lifeguard, well, easy choice.
Several weeks ago, I wrote in this space that a campaign needs to win most of the remaining weeks in order to be successful in winning an election. I compared it to fighters winning the rounds in order to win the fight.
Saying something more than once doesn't make it more true. Republicans seem to think it does, but it doesn't. There are no points for winning individual weeks. A couple big scandals or great debate/speech performances can change the outcome, regardless of what's come before. Also, you said the game was changed. You lied to me.
In the period since the Republican convention, Gov. Sarah Palin won the "weeks" for her team.
But none of that matters now because all that's important is who 'gets' the financial crisis. Also the game is changed. But we're still boxing. I'm confused.
She dominated the media. She moved poll numbers favorably
Before people got to know who she was, and the poll numbers shot back down, proving that winning individual weeks is irrelevant except in the context of the final outcome, because all that matters is who gets more votes on election day* not who's more popular in September.
In the midst of the financial crisis last week, it was John McCain's turn to pick up the ball and run with it.
Why? Why didn't Obama have a turn to do so? Is this part of how the game has changed?
He didn't do it very well. He used the Bush administration talking points on Monday: The "all the fundamentals are fine" speech! It was perceived as a disaster.
Other things perceived as disasters:
The last Challenger mission.
The maiden voyage of the Titanic.
Bristol Palin's abstinence education.
The word 'perceived' doesn't really have a place here. It can go chill with all the other verbs we don't need right now. Like 'jigger.'
Barack Obama's response wasn't much better. He took no position but jumped on McCain for saying things were OK.
You see, instead of jumping to the wrong conclusion immediately Obama took time to try and think things through, learn what he could about what was happening, and generally act like a thoughtful and responsible person.
Huge mistake. Remember, what's important is to be perceived as understanding things, even if you don't, and to immediately make a read on the situation even if you don't have one. To quote everyone's favorite hockey mom "Don't blink. Ever."
On Tuesday, McCain switched positions from "no bailouts" to "bailouts are needed." Obama still took no position.
McCain took TWO positions (contradictory though they may have been) before Obama even took one. I think we know who's fit to lead here.
His running mate, Sen. Joe Biden, said rich Americans should be patriotic and pay more taxes. A more idiotic statement has never been uttered!
"All the fundamentals of our economy are fine."
First of all, we know Joe Biden's said stupider things because he insulted Ohio State, guaranteeing a McCain victory in Ohio. Secondly, just so I am clear here, a patriot shouts drill baby drill and waves little flags around, and talks a blue streak about how great America is, but under no circumstances considers giving more money to the government despite the fact that we have an unfathomably high deficit and are now spending a trillion dollars to bail out the banks?
Patriot: Empty meaningless gestures.
Non-patriot: Sacrificing for the good of the government and the nation
Black: The color of puffy clouds
White: The color of pitch.
But then he also said last week that people in financial trouble should be able to renegotiate their interest and the principal on their housing loans. The idea of renegotiating how much you borrowed is a novel approach that should thrill the banks.
Seriously. You don't renegotiate. You call your lobbyist and demand a trillion tax dollars to cover your mistakes. That's how the banks do it, that's how Joe Mortgage should do it. Get with the program, dudes. (P.S. If the banks actually did renegotiate they might avoid some foreclosures which cost them much more than the renegotiations would, but they can't renegotiate because they've cut up the mortgages and repackaged them so many times that nobody actually owns them anymore. If only there were some new legislation to deal with this issue and open up communication...)
By Friday, McCain was back against bailouts.
THREE positions in a week. SUCK IT OBAMA!
Obama's position was: I think I am going to support Paulson's bailout, but I am going to wait and see what Bush and the Congress propose before I offer my solutions.
Cautious and thoughtful. WHAT A DISASTER.
There were no profiles in courage last week from the political campaigns.
I think it was pretty courageous of McCain to flip flop so nakedly. Also, apparently choosing to reserve judgment and think through a problem when everyone around you is screaming for immediate solutions is uncourageous.
And maybe a rush to judgment wasn't the best course either.
WHAT? How can you possibly justify that statement.
Congratulations Ed Rollins. You've managed to write a column in which you A) Talk about the horse race instead of the issues and B) Give statements that manage to be both contradictory and cynical while offering absolutely nothing in the way of insightful analysis. This is the sort of drunken old man rant I expect from my Grandpa Lester when he's off his medication.
And from CNN.
*As registered by Diebold brand electronic voting machines. Diebold, because accurate vote counts are BORING.
No comments:
Post a Comment