Barack Obama: A fund-raising problem?!

After the millions of dollars raised by Barack Obama, Superstar during the primary season, who would’ve thought that we’d be sitting here in early July discussing a lackluster fundraising campaign by the Democratic nominee-presumptive.

Yet, that’s exactly where we are. Kavon Nikrad at Race 4 2008 points out that there is a distinct possibility that Obama raised less money in June than he did in May . . . when eyebrows were raised throughout after Obama reported fundraising of around $22 million, which was just $1 million higher than John McCain.

Are we really only 2 weeks removed from Obama’s decision to opt out of public financing for post-convention campaign spending, which led pundits across the political spectrum — not to mention the mainstream media — to opine that Obama would put McCain at an astronomical cash disadvantage? Fast-forward to now, and the question is becoming whether McCain might actually be at a cash advantage. Granted, Nikrad’s speculation doesn’t appear to be based on anything concrete, and he is the only one delving into such speculation so far, but I there’s no reason to think his reasoning is too far-fetched.

Also, consider this: When the cash of each party’s national committee is paired with the candidate of choice, McCain does have a decided advantage. The RNC outgained the DNC by $80 million in the 2004 presidential election cycle, and was expected to hold an advantage over its DNC counterpart this election cycle despite the enthusiasm shown by the Democratic Party’s liberal base. In May, the RNC + McCain outgained the DNC + Obama $45.9 million to $28.1 million.

What’s the problem? Perhaps there is none. This is the lull in the election season. The primary season ended weeks ago and the conventions are still weeks away. Obama may regain his fundraising advantage by the time he surrounds Denver’s Invesco Field with 75,000 adoring fans to accept the Democratic nomination next month.

Or, perhaps there is. Needless to say, Obama’s shift to the middle in an effort to gain the support of independents and disgruntled Republican-leaning voters has infuriated his liberal base, which was responsible for much of his Internet fundraising advantage over Hillary Clinton in the primary season. Consider this passage:

FISA, gun control, public finance, the death penalty, religious-based initiatives, late-term abortions, Iraq, turning his back on groups such as MoveOn, and throwing people like Wes Clark under the bus. They all add up to Obama’s progressive base wondering with justifiable uncertainty: Who is this guy and what the hell is he doing?

And it comes, from all places, the Huffington Post! Granted, the author — Kristen Breitweiser — is a self-proclaimed Clinton-supporter-to-the-end, but if the Huffington Post isn’t united behind Obama by July (and, more importantly, more than a month after Clinton dropped out of the race), that’s telling.

Granted, liberals will stand with Obama in the end, just as disgruntled conservatives will stand with McCain in the end. Breitweiser, after ripping Obama the proverbial new one, writes, “Obama knows that he has all of your votes in his back pocket.” Still, as the liberal base cools to Obama’s approach, he’s inevitably going to have a more difficult time picking up the $25 donations from his online supporters.

Make no mistake. There was 1 issue that catapulted Obama to the nomination: The Iraq war. It made no difference that both he and Clinton were beating the leave-Iraq-now drum in January and February. Obama had opposed the war from the start (harshly criticizing the Iraq war and President Bush in his keynote at the 2004 Democratic Convention, which kickstarted his rise to fame), while Clinton was for it before she was against it.

Suddenly, Obama has changed his stance on Iraq. As Chris pointed out earlier, his new policy is an about-face. It’s not only a reminder that his foreign policy is reckless and all too apparently borne of inexperience, but it’s infuriating to the liberal base who saw the war as separation between Obama and Clinton (See also: Politico’s Roger Simon’s take on Obama and Iraq). Time’s David Von Drehle points out today that, “plenty of Clinton backers are not yet happy campers. They want to nominate their candidate as the world watches and cast 1,600 votes, as a powerful reminder that Obama’s victory was floss-thin.”

Suddenly, it’s a quandry for Obama unlike he could have possibly anticipated. He shifted on the Iraq war in an attempt to gain moderate votes, and the media called him on it. He held a hastily-called news conference to try and explain his position (and blame the media for its interpretation of his Iraq comments), but essentially said the same thing. That, and his similar shift on FISA, has supporters using My.BarackObama.Com to essentially organize against him. Breitweiser encourages her readers to stop sending Obama their money, saying that will get his attention and force him to, I suppose, revert back to his more liberal self. But, as others have already pointed out, yet another shift now would amount to political suicide. He would win over the liberal base again, but he would risk completely alienating the independent base, which would cost him the election.

Obama must feel darned-if-he-does, darned-if-he-doesn’t. But there’s more good news for McCain. Traffic on Obama’s website is at its lowest point it has been this year (though it is worth pointing out again that we are in the campaign lull . . . McCain’s website traffic is down as well and is still dwarfed by Obama’s traffic, but McCain’s homepage hasn’t seen the percentage drop that Obama’s has suffered). And, today’s Gallup presidential tracking poll finds McCain within 2 points of Obama (46% to 44%). The rolling 3-day average was last within 2 points June 31, and was deadlocked June 24-26, but McCain was down by 6 points — his largest deficit in the poll since May — as recently as this past weekend. Obama’s support has fallen from 48% to 46% while McCain’s has risen from 42% to 44%, perhaps hinting at a miniature surge in wake of Obama’s startling shift on Iraq.

All-in-all, McCain must be breathing a big easier now that Obama no longer seems completely unstoppable. And, what will the MSM make of it if, heaven forbid, the numbers wind up showing McCain with a fundraising advantage over Obama in June?

Running from Iraq

Ever since Barack Obama confounded reporters last week with vacillating statements on his Iraq policy, the anti-war candidate has been struggling to silence his critics on both side of the political spectrum.

During a press conference last Thursday in Fargo, North Dakota, Obama said, “I am going to do a thorough assessment when I’m there. I’m sure I’ll have more information and continue to refine my policy.”

And with that, the news media and political analysts around the world went into overdrive.

The storm Obama caused should not have surprised him considering that he has fervently opposed the war since the very beginning. As you may remember, in his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, Obama railed against Bush and the Iraq War. Since that time, he has been able to build a base of political support among liberals of all backgrounds due to his anti-Bush, anti-war rhetoric.

Once the news wires were transmitting the story around the world, sure enough, Obama hastily called together another press conference that morning to try and settle the uproar. Whatever the Democratic senator had meant to say, he once again reaffirmed his commitment to dovish idealism, and his disregard to the deadly realities of Middle Eastern politics and culture.

Barack Obama’s intellectual recklessness with respect to such a critical foreign policy issue makes it clear that he lacks the leadership and insight necessary to guide the nation through the uncertain times ahead. He has consistently clung to his idealist vision of international affairs, as though beautiful words and a passive-aggressive military are enough to placate America’s enemies.

Obama’s Iraq policy is madness. To advocate complete withdrawal of combat forces in fewer than two years to disregard not only everything we’ve fought for in that country, but the very future of the Persian Gulf region as a whole.

There is no doubt that the war has been plagued by gaps in intelligence, bitter disagreements among policy makers, and faults in our military and political strategy. But after five years of sectarian violence, social turmoil, and bloody street-to-street fighting in Iraq, the coalition’s efforts are beginning to pay off.

Late last week, about the time that Obama was trying to rationalize his Iraq policy gaffe, the Persian Gulf nation of U.A.E. agreed to forgive Iraq’s outstanding debt, some $4 billion in all. The Emirates are also sending a new ambassador to re-establish diplomatic relations after a five-year absence following the U.S. invasion.

This important breakthrough strengthens the democratic Iraqi government’s standing among nations and sends a crucial message to the world: Iraq is headed by a legitimate government that is now ready to reintroduce their nation to the world community.

Just two weeks before that, the Iraqi government announced that it was planning to begin accepting bids on oil production contracts from foreign petroleum companies, including several based here in the U.S. Iraq’s economy has historically been built upon its oil industry, but in the wake of Saddam’s neglect, the lead-up to the invasion, and attacks by terrorists, the country desperately needs foreign investment to get back on its feet. This is absolutely necessary for Iraq revive its economy. For that, it is essential for the U.S. to provide on-going security until full redevelopment is completed.

Having said that, we must give credit to the Iraqi Army for actively engaging militants on both sides of the Shi’ite-Sunni divide. These troops have come a long way in four years, and thanks to their recent successes in Baghdad and Basra, the Mahdi Army, one of the main obstacles to peace in Iraq, is losing not only its military power, but its political influence as well.

Perhaps most significant to our long-term security, total withdrawal and American combat forces from Iraq would be Iran’s dream come true. The mullahs in Tehran see a great opportunity to wrestle power away from the Iraqis–if only we’d leave. This says nothing about al Qaeda’s desire to instigate civil war in Iraq. If we suddenly left after everything we’ve witnessed these past few years, terrorists would feel empowered to reoccupy parts of Iraq and continue slaughtering civilians indiscriminately.

We simple cannot afford to allow Iraq to become one more bastion for our enemies in a part of the world already overflowing with warriors and weapons. Say what you will about the Iraq War and those responsible for it, but we have an obligation to see our mission through to completion. Not just for the sake of the Iraqis and the Middle East, but for our own nation and our security now and in the future.

John McCain is the obvious choice to U.S. national defense and international peace and stability. He is not afraid to deal with the situation in Iraq for what it is, rather than what he would like it to be. Even with his reputation as a maverick, McCain has continually called for the completion of our mission: a return to self-government, stability, and peace in Iraq.

Unlike his Barack Obama, John McCain understands that talk is cheap on the world stage, all the more so in the Middle East. Obama may have enough lofty idealism and eloquent speeches to fill the world’s newspapers, but he certainly doesn’t have what it takes to be Commander-in-Chief in today’s age.

A veep for Johnny Mac (episode no. 2)

Marc Ambinder reports that the McCain campaign has begun to vet its VP finalists:

Republicans close to the McCain campaign say that veepstakes supervisor A.B. Culvahouse has begun to vet between eight and ten candidates, including Gov. Tim Pawlenty of MN and Ex-Gov. Mitt Romney of MA.

You may remember that it was only 10 days ago that pundits were sure they’d figured out McCain’s 3 finalists for the position: Romney, Rob Portman and John Thume.

So who will join Romney and Pawlenty on the finalist list? Dave at Race42008 throws out a list of names, most of which have been often tossed about during this process; names like Crist, Jindal, etc. The name on Dave’s list that I continue to be intrigued with is Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

Opines Dave:

f that is our shortlist, I suspect that Ridge, Lieberman, Crist, Jindal, and Portman will all fail to make the final cut. Absent some hard evidence that Ridge would deliver Pennsylvania or that Lieberman would deliver Democratic votes (we’ve yet to see evidence for either this year), the exodus of pro-lifers that the selection of either would cause probably nixes both. Portman is a solid, safe choice, and I like the guy, but let’s face it, McCain won’t go anywhere near a potential running mate with the imprimatur of George W. Bush in this environment. Especially when there are other solid, safe choices on the shortlist. Meanwhile, Jindal seems to be stumbling out of the gate in Louisiana and has a long way to go before he’s ready for prime time. If McCain wants a young, fresh, conservative governor, he’ll pick Palin, who has governed her state longer and with fewer gaffes. And Crist may be getting married, but is still being dogged by rumors that he’s gay, and the last thing McCain wants is an October surprise because of his veep pick.

In the end, though, it would be hard to bet against seeing Romney on the national ticket. Not all conservatives are enamored by Romney’s presence on the national GOP scene, but let’s face it: McCain could do worse. Far worse, in fact, because I believe there’s considerable reason to believe that Romney could deliver Michigan for the GOP, Michigan (along with Ohio and Pennsylvania) being among the 3 most crucial states up for grabs in November. Of course, not everyone agrees that Romney would be good for the ticket.

McCain promises balanced budget (more or less)

John McCain today more or less promised to balance the budget during his first term in office, if elected president.

In a speech in Colorado, McCain said, “American workers and families pay their bills and balance their budgets, and I will demand the same of the government.” His campaign was a little more specific, releasing a memo entitled, “John McCain will balance the budget by the end of his first term.” The promise echoed what McCain stafferstold Politico.Com yesterday that McCain would say today.

The move is a risky one on McCain’s part. For one, it’s a promise that will be easy for the other side to exploit. Balancing the budget in 4 years may be a pipe dream, given the current deficit and the state of affairs in our war on terrorism. And, McCain has promised somewhere in the neighborhood of $600 billion to $700 billion per year in additional tax cuts. So, balancing the budget would become even more difficult.

To that end, McCain’s aides have hinted at both ways to balance the budget and to deflect blame if the plan were to go awry. In a policy paper released today, the McCain campaign said, “The McCain administration would reserve all savings from victory in the Iraq and Afghanistan operations in the fight against Islamic extremists for reducing the deficit. Since all their costs were financed with deficit spending, all their savings must go to deficit reduction.” Also, Marc Ambinder points out that a McCain adviser hinted in conference call today that if Democrats do not cooperate with McCain on entitlement reform (not likely), it would be the Democratic Congress which would be responsible for a budget deficit. Perhaps McCain feels he can make empty promises because it’s almost certain that there will be a Democratic majority in Congress for at least the next 2 years, and probably for the next 4, meaning there will be plenty of area to spread blame when those promises don’t pan out.

Nevertheless, a promise difficult to deliver is still a promise, and that’s more than the other side is offering right now. Obama has been remarkably short on revealing new policy ideas in the past few weeks. The mainstream media hasn’t picked up on (or, at least hasn’t mentioned) this, but see for yourself: Go to Politico.Com, Real Clear Politics, and search Google News and compare the number of stories with McCain’s new ideas vs. the number of stories with Obama’s new ideas. And, McCain has stuck to his guns on entitlements in the U.S. Senate. A veto on such items as president would be a big first step in the direction of a balanced budget.

Still, McCain must be careful. One major factor expected to play a role in McCain’s plan is reform of Social Security, according to his advisors. George W. Bush also made this a major priority for his 2nd term, and it’s scarcely come up. Granted, Bush didn’t have the support of Congress, but will Americans remember this when McCain mentions Social Security, and yawn and dismiss McCain’s plan as a continued rhetoric from the current Republican administration?

232 & counting

If recent studies are any indication, America’s current college-aged generation lacks understanding of the very basics of American civics, including the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It couldn’t tell you, without researching it, which of those documents declares that all men are created equal and that we’re granted certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

And it’s little wonder. As we celebrate this, America’s 232nd anniversary of independence today, we’ll stuff ourselves with burgers and bratwurst, watermelon and homemade ice cream, waddle down to wherever our town’s folk gather to watch the annual fireworks display (or put on our own display in the back yard), and never give a second thought to what it really means to be guaranteed these certain inalienable rights by the Declaration of Independence, the 56 men who signed it, risking their very neck to King George and the British, or the thousands and thousands of Americans who gave all to either gain or maintain that independence.

In my hometown in Tennessee today, we’ll join hometowns across America in celebrating America’s independence. And, hopefully, we’ll give pause between the burger and the beef brat to pay tribute to what it means to be an American, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, and to the sacrifice that went into making this day possible.

“What other country throws out the welcome mat like America?” asks Judge Jamie Cotton, Jr., who has been the judge in my hometown since 1990. “You can move to Russia, and live there all of your life . . . but you will never come to be a Russian,” he writes in an essay about what it means to be American. “You can move to Iran and live there . . . but you will never come to be an Iranian. You can move to North Korea and live there . . . but you will never come to be a North Korean. Yet any person, anywhere, can move to America and come to be an American. That is the magic and wonder of this place we call America.”

“Think about it for a moment. If today, we opened up every border, every checkpoint, every harbor in America, wide open – the whole planet would roll in here like water over Niagara Falls,” he adds. “Each year, we take in millions of people from other countries, from all over the world. Many legally, many not. Most with good intentions, some not. We even allow people who have entered our country illegally to protest and scream out against America, and do so in public places, without fear of arrest or reprisal. Show me another country that allows that.”

Jack E. Lay has been the mayor of my hometown for the past 11 years. His father was killed in World War II. Mayor Lay, like Judge Cotton, knows what it means to be an American.

“We, as Americans, live in the greatest nation in the world. I know that we, as a nation, have stood tall, answered the call, and responded to the cries not only of this nation but other countries who don’t know the freedom and quality of life that we enjoy. What I havewitnessed firsthand throughout my adult life makes me realize how blessed we are as a nation,” Lay says. “We are not perfect. But still, ‘The American Dream’ is alive and available to those who are willing and able to work for it. We all have the opportunity to make that dream come true. I can worship my God in the freedom and peace that others everywhere should enjoy, but are not afforded the “luxury.” I can educate my children in good schools and send them to good universities. I can live in peace with my community and neighbors. I can vote in my local, county, state, and Federal elections. I can make a difference. I love America.”

“I believe that being an American is a principle on which the hopes and dreams of its people are realized,” says Dr. Danny Cross, an optometrist in my hometown, veteran of the Vietnam War, and active civic volunteer. “The dreams that have been realized for me and whatever I am today I owe to the grace of God, who in His sovereignty blessed me to be an American. I am proud to say that I am a Yankee Doodle Dandy.”

These are but a few of those in my hometown that understand, and richly appreciate, what it means to be an American. There is, truly, no other nation on earth like it. And that, if nothing else, is worth celebrating today.

Says Judge Cotton, “My great-grandfather came to America from Ireland, sailing the dangerous voyage across the vast open waters between continents. He fought with Teddy Roosevelt at San Juan Hill. He chose to come to [this] beautiful plaace to raise a family. He built a home and barn with his own hands. He worked hard, tilling the dirt, tethering the hay. He shared with his neighbors. He loved his family. He worshiped and prayed. He did all of these things, and you know – he never had to bow to anyone.

“That is why I love America.”

Who’s smearing whom?

Revisiting this issue of which party is doing the smearing, James Kirchick made some good points in a piece he wrote for Politico earlier this week.

Addressing the numerous accusations from the media, key Democrats, and candidate Obama himself that McCain and the GOP would resort to smear tactics in the general election, Kirchick points out: “Thus far, no one with any serious affiliation to John McCain’s campaign has resorted to the alleged ’scare’ tactics in which Republicans — and, apparently, only Republicans — have been perfecting since Richard Nixon was first elected. On the contrary, if the past few months have showed us anything, it’s that the Obama campaign is the one dealing in crude smears.”

As I point out last week, the notion that it is Republicans who have a stranglehold on the smear-producing 527 organizations is a fallacy. And as Chris Brooks pointed out Monday, it’s “business as usual for the Democratic spin doctors.”

I’m not one to pretend that the right-wing is immune to hitting the spin cycle button, but let’s be honest about who is, and isn’t, smearing, spinning, and generally resorting to political-tactics-as-usual this summer.

Battleground: Ohio

Note: The first in a series of profiles of key battleground states in the 2008 election

Ohio. It is the state that is so similar to other key swing states in the Rust Belt of the nation’s midsection. And, yet, it has been so different as of late. In 2000, when Michigan and Pennsylvania were voting for Al Gore, Ohio was voting narrowly for George W. Bush. And in 2004, when Michigan and Pennsylvania were voting for John Kerry, Ohio was again voting narrowly for George W. Bush.

For that reason, Ohio is the state many pundits feel John McCain must capture if he is to defeat Barack Obama for the presidency. Lose Ohio, and the entire race is lost. Win Ohio, and hope lives at least until the next state’s results are returned. Such a scenario for victory cannot be too comfortable for the McCain camp, since polls consistently find Obama leading in the Buckeye State. Yet, for all intent and purpose, the race in Ohio is a virtual deadlock.

The Real Clear Politics poll average finds Obama leading McCain by 4.5 percentage points in Ohio. Yet, that result is largely skewed by a Democrat-tilted poll by the Public Policy Polling group. The poll, conducted in mid-June, shows Obama enjoying an 11 point lead. However, the poll’s respondants included 55% Democrats and just 30% Republicans.

With the PPP poll thrown out, the poll average quickly dips to a 2.3% lead for Obama, within the margin of error.

A Quinnipiac poll, also conducted in mid-June, finds Obama leading McCain by 6 points in Ohio. However, a series of swing state polls released by Quinnipiac on the same day also found Obama favoring better in Florida (leading McCain by 4 points) and Pennsylvania (up 12 points) than other polls have found.

Meanwhile, the most recent SurveyUSA poll finds Obama leading McCain by 2 points in Ohio, while the most recent Rasmussen poll finds McCain leading Obama by a point. Both polls are within the margin of error.

While the polls have trended more in favor of Obama since earlier in the year, the bottom line is that the Buckeye State is still very much in play.

Although it’s not necessarily an indicator of how the general election will swing, Obama — as in Pennsylvania — lost badly to Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary in Ohio last spring. Clinton scored a double-digit win over Obama.

Meanwhile, McCain sees an opportunity to capitalize on Ohio’s rural Appalachian region, and will campaign there with a town hall appearance shortly after the Independence Day holiday. The Appalachian region twice threw its support to Bush, helping to tilt the state in the Republicans’ favor both times.

But Obama isn’t throwing in the hat in Ohio. He visited Ohio twice last month, and will try to capitalize on a general feeling of misease over such issues as the economy and the war in Iraq. Good news came for Obama when McCain visited a Lordstown, Ohio, General Motors plant last week and his visit was virtually boycotted by workers. However, Turnbull County, in which Lordstown is located, favored Kerry over Bush in 2004 by an overwhelming 24-point margin.

Both candidates will spend much time — and money — in Ohio over the next 4 months. To win Ohio, many pundits say, McCain must capture support from white, rural Democrats. But it could be as simple as maintaining the Buckeye voter base that George W. Bush captured in 2000 and 2004. Given the state of the economy in rural Ohio, there are unlikely to be many “Reagan Democrats” pulling the lever for McCain in November, but then again, the days of Reagan Democrats were over before Bush won there in ‘00.

Racism to doom Obama in South?

In an op-ed in today’s New York Times, University of Maryland professor Thomas Schaller opines that Barack Obama’s strategy to turn a few red states blue is fatally flawed by bad math.

I agree with Schaller’s general premise — Obama will have a hard time wresting control of the South away from the GOP. But the reasoning behind Schaller’s argument is as fatally flawed as Obama’s campaign in the South.

For all the statistics and figures he uses, Schaller presents a point-of-view that is surprisingly shallow. Tucked beneath his math about why the South will, as he puts it, “fall again,” he seems to present the argument that Southerners vote Republican because they harbor a deep-rooted racism.

Beginning with the 2nd paragraph of his column, Schaller repeatedly throws in the word “Confederate” when referring to the South, going so far as to say that Virginia is on the verge of “seceding from the Confederacy” because of an insurgency of “upscale non-Southerners” into the D.C. suburbs of northern Virginia. Well, goshums, Ma, I guess all of us’ums Rebs down here in Gen’ral Lee country got a diff’rent mindset than them thar upscale Yanks, cause we harbor racial tendencies. What’s harbor mean, anyway, Ma?

Schaller argues that Obama cannot win Mississippi because, as his mouth shows, he would need to convince 21% of the whites there to support him. That won’t happen, he argues, because “only 14% of white voters in the state supported Mr. Kerry.” And we all know that if John Q. Caucasian didn’t support John Kerry, he sure ain’t supportin’ a black man, don’t we? Don’t we?

Schaller’s racially-tinged argument seems to be a give-away when he argues that “Passage of the 1965 Voting Rights Act led to an upsurge in black voting in the South, but it also caused many white Southerners to register and vote as well — for the Republicans.” In other words, white Southerners vote Republican because Democrats support civil rights.

Well, let’s make 2 things perfectly clear: White Southerners typically vote Republican. And there will be some who will not vote for Barack Obama because of his skin color (just as there are some black Southerners who will not vote for John McCain because of his skin color . . . or to put it more aptly, those folks will vote for either candidate because of his skin color).

But let’s put aside the throwbacks to a war that happened 140 years ago and a segregation movement that ended nearly a half-century ago and examine why Southerners really vote Republican. Thomas Schaller is a product of the Washington-Baltimore-Annapolis metroplex. I’ve spent 29 years living among Southerners. I think I know what makes us tick. And I’m surprised that it even has to be pointed out that Southerners vote Republican because of — brace yourselves — religion.

This is the Bible Belt, and it is for a reason: Folks vote their conscience, and their conscience is guided by their morals, and their morals are obtained from Biblical teachings. One may feel that it’s misguided to bring social issues into politics, and that’s one’s prerogorative. I have no intent of making a too long post even longer by delving into the merits or lack thereof of placing more importance on a social agenda than on the economy, healthcare and education. I’m simply telling you that this is the way it’s been here, and has been since the Moral Majority initiative of Jerry Falwell. Folks in these parts didn’t need Rev. Falwell to tell them that they opposed abortion and gay marriage; They believed that long before and would’ve voted accordingly, but were blissfully unaware of the importance of such issues in politics until Falwell’s day.

Folks around here didn’t vote for George W. Bush because Al Gore was a former 2nd in command to the man who wore the title of “America’s First Black President” proudly on his sleeve. They voted for George W. Bush because Bush wore his Christianity and social conservatism on his sleeve. There were other reasons, too, of course — Southerners tend to own guns and more Democrats than not tend to oppose unrestricted gun rights, and there are other minor issues as well. But I would argue that social conservatism is the key persuasion of the Southern vote.

Clock back 32 years, to Jimmy Carter’s victory in the 1976 presidential election. Carter was a Democrat, just a decade removed from the civil rights legislation that Schaller contends caused Southerners to rise up in support of Republicans, and Carter swept the South, with the exception of Virginia. Why Carter? Why a Democrat in these shark infested waters of tainted by racism and Democratic disdain? Carter was a native son, of course, but the election wasn’t that simple. Carter, like George Bush 24 years later, wore his religion on his sleeve — perhaps moreso than Bush — and he offered up a platform built around evangelical leanings.

Make no mistake: White Southerners will vote for John McCain. But it will be because Barack Obama supports abortion, including partial-birth abortion, and a variety of other causes on a socially liberal platform rather than because of the color of his skin (need we point out that Jesse Jackson won the Democratic primaries in Virginia, South Carolina, Louisiana and Mississippi in 1984? Or that Barack Obama faired quite well in the South this winter and spring? And that both men were opposed by white opponents in primaries that included large numbers of white voters?).

So, the final line of Schaller’s argument is a bit flawed. Obama won’t lose the South because it is, as Schaller puts it, “The country’s most racially polarized region.” Obama will lose the South because it, whether for justified reasons or not on the social issues, is the country’s most conservative region.

Electorally speaking

For all the campaigning, stumping and mud-slinging that goes into the presidential elections, races for the White House in the modern era of American politics tend to come down to a few key states: The swing states in the nation’s midsection (Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan), the electoral prize to which those Midwesterners retire (Florida), and few others. The West Coast and New England are going to be blue, the South and the West are going to be red.

The 2008 presidential election isn’t much different, at least at first glance. He who takes the swing states (the Midwest + Florida) is figured to be the winner. George W. Bush did it twice by taking just one of the Midwest states (Ohio) and by adding Florida to his electoral coffers.

But Bush did it narrowly, and without his Democratic opponents repainting a significant number of red states blue. By contrast, Barack Obama is aggressively persuing voters in several key states that typically vote Republican, and that could play a huge role in the campaign. In other words, maintaining the Bush electoral status quo might not quite cut it for John McCain.

Consider 2000, when Al Gore came up just short of the presidency. He did it without Ohio and Florida, and by converting just 2 red states: New Mexico and Iowa. A win in West Virginia, which he narrowly lost, would have been enough to secure the presidency for Gore. Obama leads in both New Mexico and Iowa, and is deadlocked with McCain in Nevada. A couple of other states that Bush relied on — Indiana and Virginia — in both 2000 and 2004 could also go blue this fall. So even if McCain were to win Ohio (where he currently trails) and Florida (where his lead is shrinking), that might not be enough if he cannot conserve the electoral base built by Bush.

On the other hand, 2 swing states that typically go Democrat are hanging in the balance. Obama’s lead in Pennsylvania — where he lost overwhelmingly to Hillary Clinton in the primary — is not significant, and the poll average in Michigan is well within the margin of error. No Republican has won either of those states since George H.W. Bush in 1988. Suffice it to say that if McCain could capture just 1 of those 2 states, and hold on to Ohio, he could afford any inroads Obama blazes into the West, where electoral votes are typically measured in the single digits (the exception is Arizona’s 10 electoral votes, and if McCain pulls an Al Gore and loses his home state, he has much bigger problems to worry about anyway).

Some of those red states in the east that Obama has his eyes on wouldn’t be so easy to overcome. Indiana boasts 11 electoral votes, as does Missouri. By winning both of those states, Obama could overcome a loss in either Michigan or Pennsylvania. Add in a Virginia (13) or a North Carolina (15), and McCain would have to win both Michigan and Pennsylvania to hold ground . . . throw in a couple of those smaller states, and Obama might find the road to the White House paved without the stepping stones of Michigan, Ohio or Pennsylvania. It would’ve been almost inconceiveable in 2000 or 2004 that Bush could win the presidency without any of those states, but it goes to show just how much this race hangs in the balance. It is a race that hasn’t been defined by any precedent so far, so why should we expect the electoral count to be any more mundane than this highly unusual race as a whole?

In the end, though, one has to think that much of the status quo will be maintained. Obama might win a targeted red state here or there — perhaps New Mexico, perhaps Virginia — but pulling off wholesale victories in those states is very unlikely. We won’t know, of course, until after the parties hold their respective conventions later this month and next, and folks who haven’t paid any attention to the race thus far start to do so. But it seems likely that the race will once again come back down to those key states in the nation’s Rust Belt.

Then there’s the issue of running mates to consider. Historically, running mates don’t make a substantial difference in the outcomes of these campaigns. But this election could be historically close, not only on a national scale, as was the Bush-Gore finale in 2000, but on a state-by-state scale as well. For instance, Mitt Romney’s family ties in Michigan and his Mormon ties in the West might be enough to swing a couple of states McCain’s way that would otherwise go to Obama.

Veep dubiety: Romney? Portman? Palin?!?

The guessing game over who will be selected as John McCain’s running mate continues, with no less speculation and no more certainty as the general election campaign gets prepared to shift into full gear.

According to rumors, McCain’s short list for the veep slot has been narrowed to 3: Mitt Romney, his bitter opponent in the primaries; Ohio Congressman Rob Portman; and South Dakota’s John Thume, the Senator who unseated former majority leader Tom Daschle in 2004.

Long shots (like former opponent Mike Huckabee) and safe bets (like Minnesota’s Tim Pawlenty) alike have apparently fallen to the website as McCain nears an end in the process of choosing a running mate.

So, if the race is indeed down to 3, whom will it be? Opinions, it turns out, are much more varied than the short list of candidates.

Politico opines that Romney will be the veep selection, pointing out that he could raise large amounts of money (”McCain sources tell Politico that they believe Romney could raise $50 million in 60 days. One close Romney adviser said it could even be $60 million”). Romney’s resume would also be likely to add a lot of credibility to the GOP ticket where the issue of a stumbling economy is concerned. And, it doesn’t hurt that Romney has family ties in Michigan (his father was a presidential candidate there), a key swing state that typically goes for the Democratic candidate.

But perhaps the biggest benefit Romney would bring to the ticket is his Mormon affiliation. The swing that would provide in the West would likely be enough to propel McCain over Obama in Nevada, a red state that appears set to go blue in November.

Critics, however, point out that Romney and McCain were bitter rivals during the primary season. And, the Republicans’ conservative base remained less than enamored with Romney despite endorsements by well-known right-wing commentators such as Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity. It’s also speculated that Romney’s LDS affiliation could hurt him in the South’s Bible Belt, a typical Republican stronghold where Obama is attempting to make inroads, particularly in South Carolina and Georgia.

Dave at Race42008, meanwhile, feels that Portman is the right choice. Dave says:

He’s from Ohio, a battleground state that both candidates need to win. The fact that he’s from Ohio means that he will carry himself like a guy from Ohio, and guys from Ohio tend to be very similar to guys from Michigan and guys from Pennsylvania, meaning that Portman should be able to connect to folks in the Pittsburgh and Detroit suburbs just as easily as he connects to those in his own Ohio congressional district.

Newsweek’s Andrew Romano is also aboard the Romney bandwagon.

But Portman, while a solid conservative, is a virtual unknown outside Ohio and even within his state but outside his district. And, his close affiliation with the Bush administration could hurt him.

Meanwhile, Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol offers this wrinkle: Alaska governor Sarah Palin.

Palin has been quietly mentioned in some circles as a candidate for McCain’s running mate, but is considered a very long shot. But why not? As Alaska’s youngest governor ever, Palin’s disapproval rating is only 5% . . . she is the most popular politician in America among her constituency. She’s solidly conservative, but doesn’t march to anyone’s drum beat. She’s anti-abortion and opposes gay marriage, but vetoed legislation that effectively granted state benefits to same-sex couples. She’s taken a leading role in addressing climate change in Alaska, but has sued the U.S. Dept. of the Interior for placing the polar bear on the federal endangered species list, saying the classification will harm her state’s ability to expand oil and gas production efforts. And, did we mention she’s a woman? In a year where voters appear enamored by the possibilities of presidential firsts? (And, because we’re Americans and thusly are always looking ahead for the next source of entertainment before the current entertainment ends, a Palin vice presidency candidacy would possibly set up a Palin vs. Clinton presidential showdown in 2012; female vs. female. Oh, the possibilities.)