McCain's campaign manager stated last week that this campaign is "not about the issues." I am left wondering whether this new Fannie Mae government takeover will impede on the "free market" ideological push that I noticed at the RNC.
Palin commented on Fannie Mae as a company that has become "too big and too expensive for the tax payers, the McCain administration will make them smaller" (link). While scanning some articles, I found that many have commented on her strong attachment with the free-market for health care, education, and in general business.
With Obama and McCain backing the government's takeover, I think this extraordinary action may result in giving Bob Barr more airtime which would lead to some negative press for the McCain-Palin ticket. If this election will be as close as some are projecting, Barr may be a difference maker in the swing states. His campaign has largely gone unnoticed thus far, if things go badly for the F-Mae transition, it may lead to alienation of those borderline Ron Paul voters, and a ramping up of support in terms of money and advertisements for Barr. Here's an LA Times article that makes this argument.
Obama's quick advocacy for the takeover is a lost opportunity to link McCain and Bush together with special interests. David M. Moffett, a senior adviser at the Carlyle group will be managing the transition for the Bush administration. Carlyle-Bush ties go back to Bush Sr. when he was a "global emissary" for the company. Some have contended that the company is apart of the "military-industrial complex," as a weapons dealer that has profited pretty well during the last 8 years. I'm fairly certain McCain may have spoken first on the subject, and Obama followed. Obama could have created a distinction between him and McCain by attaching him further to Bush. It was an opportunity to further his narrative that Washington and McCain are too integrated with special interests. Of course, Obama is already pushing this issue with various other arguments. I guess we'll see whether the campaign will decide to use their limited resources to make distinctions, and start fights over issues like Fannie Mae, or if they'll continue their current path of general criticism on a lack of McCain's focus on the economy.
--My 2 cents for the day
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
1 comment:
The LA Times piece (actually a blog) has some interesting points -- most of them pulled from a Bob Barr press release, but I don't see him having the kind of effect on this election that Perot had in '92.
I don't have stats on Libertarian Party membership at hand right now, but I'd bet that most voters who'd go with Barr don't live in swing states. I could be wrong on that, but the Libertarians (party-affiliated or otherwise) I know are businessfolk who don't like being taxed, but also don't like the Christian Right element of the Repub Party. True, that doesn't leave them much of an option in this election,and they may go with Barr just as a protest. But it's not 1992. I think most voters perceive the stakes as being too high this time.
Post a Comment