Manipulation of Events?

In reading through political news of the past week, one of the topics that came to my head is the potential of the GOP to alter the direction of events, namely in regards to the economy and Iraq, immediately before the election in a last ditch effort to make a huge difference. A study released this week showed that the highest levels of violence in Iraq around that time period were right before the election. Perhaps that would make Bush look weak but it could also be used to persuade voters that a strong President is needed. I see much of the same shaping up for this election. With the economy teetering on the brink of full-blown recession, democrats are calling for more stimulus measures while Republicans are saying that the first stimulus checks have not been sent out yet. While this is obviously an exaggeration, what happens if the checks arrive the week before the election? That would probably convince more than a few people to Republican. Likewise, events in Iraq could likely be manipulated, for better or worse, to help meet GOP needs as the election looms. While this might be a bit of a “conspiracy theory,” it is certainly interesting to think about the steps parties will take to try to portray events in their favor.

Look out Democrats...

On the front page of today's New York Times there was a huge article about Senator McCain's campaign and how they have downplayed the fact that McCain's youngest son, Jimmy McCain, is a Lance Corporal who enlisted at just 17 into the Marine Corps. I recommend that everyone read the article because it is really interesting to see this side of McCain - the concerned father of a soldier. It certainly made an impact on me since McCain is currently the only candidate advocating that we stay in Iraq to attempt to finish what we started; his opinions and feelings on the subject are not only rooted from his own experiences in Vietnam, but also because he was able to visit his son in Iraq and see for himself the strides that were being made. Granted, he visited in a period of relative calm, but speaking to the soldiers firsthand has made him firm in his belief that we need to stay overseas much longer than his opponents are predicting.

The Times notes that both the McCain family and campaign did not want this article to run. Indeed, the campaign has not wanted to exploit Jimmy McCain, the McCains' strongest tie to the war, and so has purposefully attempted to keep his service somewhat of a non-issue. I find this to be highly admirable, and while it irks me that the Times ran the article against McCain's wishes, I also am now shaking in my Democratic boots. I've tended to disregard the sentiment that McCain had any chance of winning the Presidency, simple because the Democrats have such strong candidates this election. Furthermore, the entire American populace has become jaded with Republicans running our nation. On the other hand, this article juxtaposes the catfights that are occurring in the Democratic camps with the calm and confidence that is now circling the Republican nomination and I have to admit, with all of the controversy and immaturity that is expected to erupt during the DNC, I can now see McCain emerging as the top candidate.

http://www.nytimes.com/pages/todayspaper/index.html

Straight Talk Express now serving Europe

John McCain is finding that certain luxuries come along with securing your party's nomination early on; one of them is that McCain can afford to spend time traveling abroad while the Democrats continue to battle each other stateside. As explained in a Time magazine article about McCain's recent visit to Britain, his trips have allowed him to "burnish his foreign affairs credentials." (This aim was thwarted when McCain committed a gaffe by mixing up extremist factions in Iraq, an error of as-yet-uncertain impact.) Technically, the trip was made in McCain's capacity as a senator, but photos with heads of state certainly don't hurt his standing as a candidate.

Both Clinton and Obama often tout their ability to repair America's reputation abroad after eight years of foreign policy blunders by the Bush administration. As a Republican, McCain shares many positions with Bush; most notably, he has been a chief advocate of the unpopular war in Iraq. Because of these factors, McCain has generally not been viewed as a particularly potent antidote for improving America's image internationally. The article linked above characterizes the British public as enthralled by the Democratic candidates in the race and largely disinterested in the Republican side.

However, certain groups abroad might be receptive to a President McCain. His reputation for being moderate and straightforward has earned him respect while his military background grants him credibility in matters of war. A recent editorial in the Times of London credits McCain with offering a solid assessment of the situation in Iraq and urges Prime Minister Gordon Brown to heed his advice. (True, the Times is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a well-known conservative, but his editorial control is supposedly minimal.) The Times has a significant voice in London, the capital city of one of our most critical allies, so it's worth noting that this editorial quite forcefully backs McCain on Iraq. The Republican nominee also held a high-profile fundraiser in London. 

These articles have me speculating about how McCain would be perceived abroad as Commander in Chief. As a successor to Bush, he would present nowhere near as stark a contrast as either of the Democrats, but his administration would surely be different in major ways. A New York Times article outlines ways that McCain tried to highlight those differences during his travels. What would a McCain presidency mean to our foreign friends...and to less friendly foreigners?

McCain's Threat Appeal: Helpful or Hurtful

In a recent town hall meeting in PA, Republican John McCain revealed that he feared terrorists might increase attacks in Iraq in order to tip the election against him in November. While he is known for saying the U.S. could have presence in Iraq for "maybe a hundred years," both Clinton and Obama have promised to withdraw troops. Attacks and casualities abroad could potenitally increase anti-war sentiment as people see that American presence is more detrimental than helpful, thus bringing support to whoever the Democratic nominee will be.

I wonder, though, if such attacks could cause as much damage as people might think. Could it possibly have the opposite effect? Might people feel that more troops need to go and fight "the enemies" to sort things out?

I feel that fear of terrorists and homeland security are what put our current leader in office. The 9/11 attacks were actually were helpful for him because he promised security and protection that his opponent did not. I feel that by capitalizing on our fear and positioning himself as a hater-of-all-evil, he gained a lot of support that he would not have received otherwise.

If there more casualties abroad, will that elicit reactions of withdrawal or fuel support for war? What if they happen on American soil? Would that change people's reactions? Threat appeals have very powerful persuasive impact, but to whose advantage will it swing?

My thoughts were fueled by this NY Times blog post.

Spreading Democracy....to Cuba?

The cat's out of the bag...Fidel Castro is out as President of Cuba, and while the White House has no immediate plans to lift sanctions on the country, I can't help but wonder if Cuba would be the next place Bush would try to "spread democracy" a la Iraq if he had more time in office....So now I have to wonder how big of a policy issue will Cuba be for the rest of the campaign season? With Castro's brother Raul, who is a little friendlier to the West, taking the helm, one has to wonder if Cuba may actually experience a democratic movement...and what role the US will play in that happening.

I'm eager to see what the candidates' stance on Cuba will be...It's clear that communism isn't going to take hold in America anytime soon, so should we keep the sanctions we currently have, now that the "Red Scare" is long dead? Or does "new" leadership in Cuba mean a new day in Cuba-US relations?

I know I'll be watching over the next few weeks just to see what stance each of the candidates take towards the future of Cuba.

Candidates' electability

The 2008 Presidential campaign is a surprised. Indeed, based on the controversial results of the Bush administration partly because of the Iraq war, a democratic victory seemed to be easy. In Europe, we are used to what we call alternance or the change in power. On the other side of the Atlantic Ocean, people think that belonging to the same political party than George W. Bush is a handicap. It makes no doubt that a democratic candidate is going to win, and it is the reason why the European media are largely covering Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama’s campaigns. Yet, the campaign is widely more open than it appears to be and, like in every presidential race, candidates have to prove their ability to resolve people’s issues. Democratic candidates have no advantage over republican ones. A January-14 article published in the New York Times points out that Senators Clinton and Obama have both to fight to prove their electability. Obama’s victory in Iowa and Clinton’s one in New Hampshire have shown democratic voters’ confidence in the two candidates for competing against a republican. Surprisingly, republican candidates don’t have this electability issue. More substantial issues seem to be at stake according to a survey conducted by the New York Times. Americans’ prime concern is no longer the Iraq war, but the economy; 62 percent said they believe that the economy is getting worse. For republican sympathizers, now the question is which candidate will be able to improve the country’s economy. This survey points out the role played by voters in setting the agenda; if the Iraq war is no longer their main concern, it is going to help republican candidates to put a distance between them and the Bush administration.

Post inspired by article: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/14/us/politics/14poll.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin