The editors of The New Republic have a post scolding Senator Obama for his reluctance to use the word “Republican.” Here’s the gist:

If voters thought McCain was just another Republican, they would run away screaming. That is why McCain is desperate to shed the label–and Barack Obama is desperate to make it stick.
Except, um, that’s not what Obama is doing. On the day before McCain released his ad, Obama gave a major speech on economics. It was a hard-hitting address, in which Obama proclaimed, “It’s time to put an end to a broken system in Washington that is breaking the American economy.” But the word “Republican” never came up. The next day, Obama released a somber ad in which he addressed the camera for two minutes. It included plenty of smart ideas (something he has never lacked, notwithstanding the bogus charge that he’s “all talk”). But its message was all about Obama the non-ideological reformer–that is, the guy positioned to clean up Washington. “Partisan fights and outworn ideas of the left and right won’t solve the problems we face today,” he said. Republicans? They didn’t make cameos here, either. Neither did Bush.

It is a consequential decision, but not necessarilly such an easy call. I tend to agree with the TNR editors that Obama has to use the label to make it stick. Surrogates’ sound bites just don’t get the necessary buzz. Yet Obama is making some inroads with “Obamacons” and seniors (see new CNN poll), many of whom are Republicans. And his campaign’s internal polling may show a potential for many more in light of the deepening financial crisis. Not all conservatives are gung ho in favor of bailing out failed businesses, elective war and nation-building in other countries. He has to be a little careful, not to be perceived as engaging in name-calling that would alienate potential supporters.
That said, the Republicans are directly responsible for the deregulation mania that lead to the financial meltdown, and you can’t hold them responsible without saying so at some point. The challenge is artfully making the distinction between Republican office-holders “who have betrayed their conservative heritage” and fed-up Republican voters who may be considering a Nov.4 cross-over. It’s about simultaneously holding the GOP responsible, while at the same time expressing welcoming respect for potential converts.

Mine probably weren’t the only eyebrows raised at the news that former Maryland Lieutenant Gov. Michael Steele is playing Barack Obama in John McCain’s preparations for his first presidential debate on Friday. Steele’s preeminent qualification seems to be that he’s African-American.
Now it’s true that MI Gov. Jennifer Granholm is playing a similar sparring-partner role for Joe Biden in his prep for debating Sarah Palin. But this is almost certainly attributable to the need to deal with the Lazio Factor–the famous 2000 precedent whereby Rick Lazio seemed to condescedingly bully Hillary Clinton in a classic gender-inflected dynamic.
It’s not exactly clear what the racial analogy to the Lazio Factor might be, unless Team McCain is concerned their candidate will slip up and address the relatively youthful Obama as “boy” or something.
In any event, if McCain just had to have an African-American stand-in, I’m with Jon Chait: why not Alan Keyes, who has himself debated Obama (not to mention McCain)?

The general expectation this week is that the Paulson Plan for avoiding a worldwide financial meltdown, with an uncertain number of modifications, is going to pass Congress overwhelmingly, and recede into the background in the presidential campaign.
I don’t know about that.
Every Democrat should read Patrick Ruffini’s post from yesterday at NextRight. He is, I strongly suspect, perfectly reflecting the game that Republicans, including Team McCain, want to play with the Paulson Plan:

Republican incumbents in close races have the easiest vote of their lives coming up this week: No on the Bush-Pelosi Wall Street bailout.
God Himself couldn’t have given rank-and-file Republicans a better opportunity to create political space between themselves and the Administration. That’s why I want to see 40 Republican No votes in the Senate, and 150+ in the House. If a bailout is to pass, let it be with Democratic votes. Let this be the political establishment (Bush Republicans in the White House + Democrats in Congress) saddling the taxpayers with hundreds of billions in debt (more than the Iraq War, conjured up in a single weekend, and enabled by Pelosi, btw), while principled Republicans say “No” and go to the country with a stinging indictment of the majority in Congress….
In an ideal world, McCain opposes this because of all the Democratic add-ons and shows up to vote Nay while Obama punts.
History has shown us that “inevitable” “emergency” legislation like the Patriot Act or Sarbanes-Oxley is never more popular than on the day it is passed — and this isn’t all that popular to begin with. All the upside comes with voting against it.

Ruffini is exactly right about the politics of this issue, especially for Republicans. Think of this as like one of those periodic votes on raising the public debt limit. It has to pass, of course, but there’s zero percentage in supporting it for any one individual. The speculative costs of the legislation actually failing are completely intangible and ultimately irrelevant, while the costs it will impose are tangible and controversial from almost every point of view. For McCain and other Republicans, voting “no” on Paulson without accepting the consequences of that vote is the political equivalent of a bottomless crack pipe: it will please the conservative “base,” distance them from both Bush and “Washington,” and let them indulge in both anti-government and anti-corporate demagoguery, even as Democrats bail out their Wall Street friends and big investors generally. You simply can’t imagine a better way for McCain to decisively reinforce his simultaneous efforts to pander to the “base” while posing as a “maverick.”
Democrats are right to demand significant substantive concessions before offering their support for the Paulson Plan. But just as importantly, they need to demand Republican votes in Congress, including the vote of John McCain. If this is going to be a “bipartisan” relief plan, it has to be fully bipartisan, not an opportunity for McCain to count on Obama and other Democrats to save the economy while exploiting their sense of responsibility to win the election for the party that let this crisis occur in the first place.

To call this week a pivotal moment in the presidential campaign, and perhaps even in U.S. history, is probably not much of an exaggeration. High-stakes wrangling in Congress over Treasury Secretary Paulson’s Wall Street stabilization plan will run around the clock, with elements of both parties threatening to kill it. The first presidential candidates’ debate occurs on Friday–planned, inconveniently, to focus on foreign policy. And early voting begins today in Virginia, Kentucky and Georgia, with some estimates suggesting that as much as a third of the national electorate will cast ballots before November 4.
It’s often said that winning campaigns are those who “play chess” while their opponents “play checkers.” But in this general election, in this peculiar climate, the winner may need to play three-dimensional chess.

If you don’t have enough to worry about with the financial meltdown, which has panicked Bush Administration figures into the most expensive bailout in U.S. history, you could consider the various warning signs about a potential electoral meltdown in November.
Mary Pat Flaherty has a useful roundup in the Washington Post today of the most obvious problems with rapidly changing voting systems encountering record numbers of new voters.
The bottom line, of course, is that we persist in allowing a highly decentralized, crazy-quilt system of electoral rules, procedures and “safeguards” dictated at the state and sometimes county levels of government. It was in 2000, and remains today, a recipe for disaster.

The announcement yesterday by John McCain that he favored the firing of SEC Chairman Christoper Cox was interesting, to say the least. Some may not realize that Cox has long been a major conservative hearth-throb, mentioned, in fact, as a potential running-mate for McCain himself not that long ago.
Indeed, Cox–then a California congressman–got some national attention back in 2000 as the consensus “movement conservative” favorite to become George W. Bush’s running-mate.
He was selected to chair the SEC in 2005 precisely because he was certain to be a pro-business deregulator in the post. Here’s an assessment at the time by Stephen Labaton of the New York Times:

In Republican and business circles, William H. Donaldson has been viewed as the David Souter of the Securities and Exchange Commission, a disappointingly independent choice who sided too frequently with the Democrats.
President Bush, hearing complaints about Mr. Donaldson’s record from across the business spectrum, responded on Thursday by nominating Representative Christopher Cox, a conservative Republican from California, as a successor whose loyalties seem clear. And unlike the Supreme Court, where Justice Souter has a lifetime appointment, the S.E.C. provides the White House with an immediate opportunity to tip the balance of the five-person commission in a more favorable direction.
Mr. Cox – a devoted student of Ayn Rand, the high priestess of unfettered capitalism – has a long record in the House of promoting the agenda of business interests that are a cornerstone of the Republican Party’s political and financial support.
A major recipient of contributions from business groups, the accounting profession and Silicon Valley, he has fought against accounting rules that would give less favorable treatment to corporate mergers and executive stock options. He opposes taxes on dividends and capital gains. And he helped to steer through the House a bill making investor lawsuits more difficult.

Can’t say Cox didn’t come through as promised, eh?
One has to wonder if McCain would have dared call for Cox’s firing if he hadn’t definitively nailed down conservative activist support with his Veep selection of Sarah Palin. As it is, there’s still some grumbling on the Right about McCain’s opportunism in blaming poor ol’ Chris Cox for the financial crisis.

The meltdown of top financial institutions has left millions of American workers in doubt about the security of their retirement assets, and it’s a particularly urgent concern for those nearing retirement age. The crisis presents an opportunity for the Obama campaign to make significant inroads into a major demographic group that has trended toward McCain thus far and who are now feeling the big hurt — seniors.
Amazingly, the GOP nominee has cooperated in trashing his own credibility on the topic. Here’s John McCain breaking bad on golden parachutes:

Speaking to NBC’s Matt Lauer about the current crisis on Wall Street, the Republican nominee said executives have “treated it like a casino and need to be held accountable and stop walking away with these fat-cat packages.”

Ridiculous as it sounds, coming from one of the Fat Cats’ most reliable Senate bellhops, lots of people will buy it. Why? Because it fills a void. Working people do want more accountability and more fairness in retirement pensions. To those who are not familiar with his track record on social security, pension reform and banking regulation, it sounds plausible, and it fits in well enough with the McCain campaign’s ‘Maverick’ meme, bogus though it is.
But it can only work if Senator Obama and the Democrats let it go unchallenged. Let all Democrats hasten to point out at every opportunity that McCain’s trusted business and economic advisor/sidekick/mouthpiece, Carly Fiorina floated away from her unproductive tenure at the helm of Hewlett-Packard with a golden parachute worth a cool $42 million.
One way to do the the soundbite for speeches, ads, debates and interviews:

John McCain recently called for more accountability for corporate executives with “fat cat packages.” You can bet he didn’t get that idea from his top business advisor Carly Fiorina, who left Hewlett-Packard with a $42 million dollar golden parachute. Now millions of American workers are seeing their retirement saving slashed.

Or, on Social Security reform:

John McCain was one of the champions of putting your social security assets in the private sector. Imagine the shape millions of working families would be in now if he got his way. We need better judgment in the white house.

It appears the Obama is on the right track. Here’s what he said yesterday in New Mexico:

“In the next 47 days, you can fire the whole trickle-down, on-your-own, look-the-other-way crowd in Washington who has led us down this disastrous path,” he thundered. “Don’t just get rid of one guy. Get rid of this administration. Get rid of this philosophy. Get rid of the do-nothing approach to our economic problem and put somebody in there who’s going to fight for you.”

When we say “It’s the economy, stupid,” we’re basically talking about four key concerns — jobs, pay, retirement and health security, and now we can add housing — all of which have been put at risk for millions by GOP-driven deregulation and the current meltdown. Democrats have been given a timely opportunity to demonstrate leadership and the superiority of their track record and policies as champions of genuine economic security. Making the most of it with seniors will serve us well.

Like John McCain, I’d have to admit that I don’t know a whole lot about economics. Sure, I took a couple of pie-chart economics courses in college way back in the day, and have tried to self-educate myself on the subject ever since. During my DLC days, I probably got too enamored with the New Economy hype, though the technological transformation of our country’s economic opportunities remains important, particularly to progressives who are very invested in the idea that the knowledge and skills of American workers generally have become critical capital assets.
But today I’d like to offer a couple of important reads about the economy, The first is a scary explanation of the current financial crisis from Time magazine, by Andy Serwer and Allan Sloan. The second is a short post by an economist calling him- or herself KNZN, which points out that net job loss figures vastly underestimate the number of people who have actually lost jobs, and may well have taken worse jobs.
The first offering is alarming enough to keep you awake, and the second is short and to the point. We all need an economics tuneup in these perilous days.

George Will’s column, “McCain’s Closing Argument,” appearing today in WaPo and zillions of other newspapers, urges the GOP nominee to make the old ‘virtues of bipartisan government’ argument as his trump card. It’s a clever strategy, and would be more effective if Will had not gone public with it and instead coached McCain to roll it out in the final presidential debate, catching Senator Obama off guard.
McCain will make the argument. He has to, although not only in the debates. He may roll it out even sooner, hoping to get a meme going. The danger for Democrats is that it is an argument that has some appeal for moderates. Will knows Obama will now have a response ready, which will include a couple of key points.
One counter-argument is that there are not two, but three branches of government, including the judiciary, which was conveniently not mentioned by Will. In fact, the ‘virtues of divided government’ argument is misleading for that reason. The only way we could ever have an evenly divided government is for the Supreme Court to have an even number of members, instead of nine.
After eight years of Republican judicial appointments, the U.S. Supreme Court and federal judgeships are already drifting too far to the right. Four or eight more years of GOP domination of the judiciary could be disastrous for women, unions, working people, consumers, the environment and civil liberties.
But it’s not just the judiciary. Eight years of Republican control has also transformed all of the federal departments and agencies into rubber stamps for the worst policies of corporate management, serving the super-wealthy and privileged at the expense of working people. Senator Obama can respond to good effect “What would America look like after 16 years of Republican control of the executive and judicial branches of government?”, with the current meltdown as exhibit “A.”
As the nation’s most widely-read columnist, Will’s real goal in promoting the ‘virtues of divided government’ argument is to generate buzz among the electorate in living rooms and at water-coolers across the nation. No doubt the buzz is already rolling. Democratic candidates, campaigns and ad-makers should be ready with the rebuttal.

One of John McCain’s real assets going into this election cycle was an unusually positive image among political reporters and pundits, dating back to his careful cultivation of them during his 2000 campaign. Indeed, the role of the media in boosting his political prospects was the subject of a much-discussed (among Democrats, at least) book published earlier this year, by David Brock and Paul Waldman, entitled Free Ride.
Well, McCain’s media fan club has been notably shrinking of late, as nicely summarized by Steve Benen on the occasion of Elizabeth Drew’s disavowal of her past positive feelings about the Arizonan:

McCain is certainly losing friends fast, isn’t he? Drew’s condemnation comes just a couple of days after Richard Cohen’s. Which came a couple of days after Stephen Chapman’s. Which followed Michael Kinsley, Thomas Friedman, Sebastian Mallaby, Joe Klein, E.J. Dionne, Jr., Ruth Marcus, Mark Halperin, and Bob Herbert. Even David Brooks is getting there.
All admired John McCain, all held him in the highest regard, and all have been disgusted as McCain has descended into a Republican hack.

There’s still David Broder, I suppose. But by and large, McCain’s support group is now limited to the conservative advocacy media, most of whose members would be a lot happier if they were thumping the tubs for Mitt Romney.
Will this matter in the real world? Hard to say. At a minimum, the MSM’s growing reluctance to give McCain some sort of personal-honor mulligan could exert a slightly restraining influence over the precise depths of nastiness to which his campaign ultimately descends. During the debates, where media ratings typically have an modest but real effect on how voters perceive the performance of candidates, McCain will not benefit like George W. Bush did in 2000 and 2004 from the personal hostility of reporters and pundits towards his opponent.
Team McCain may, of course, simply incorporate media disdain into its panoply of Evil Forces that their candidate is fighting to vanquish, much as they did during the roll-out of the Palin selection. A full-fledged Nixon-Agnew-style assault on the MSM would definitely please “the base,” along with the Fox News types who want to remake the media world in their own image. But that’s a tricky business, which could backfire by making the MSM, long the validator of McCain’s “maverick” street cred, a real and abiding enemy.
The strange thing about this whole phenomenon is the genuine sense of hurt and betrayal exhibited by McCain’s former media friends. It’s been obvious to a lot of us for quite some time that McCain was going to become very McNasty in this general election, as a strategic necessity. It’s what candidates typically do when their party and ideology are jarringly out of step with public opinion–particularly if they are 72 years old and this is their last shot at the brass ring of the presidency.
It says a lot about the McCain Myth that so many smart people thought he’d do less than whatever it took to put himself into a competitive position out of some sort of invincible sense of decency. But now they know better.