Random thoughts on why Trump won the election

The first and only Presidential election I was ever heavily invested in was in my overly idealistic youth (which should not be confused with my overly idealistic adulthood or my overly idealistic senior citizen status). In 1964, during the first Presidential election in which I was eligible to vote, I worked tirelessly to elect Lyndon Baines Johnson. And it wasn’t because he was a Texan — I didn’t even live in Texas in 1964 — I did it because I really, truly believed him when he solemnly swore "I’m not going to send American boys to fight in an Asian war."

I’m still pulling the knives out of my back more than a half-century later, but that experience taught me a number of valuable lessons. Chief among them was a candidate for political office will say or do anything it takes to get elected and those of us in the political diaspora should not believe a single word a political candidate — most especially a Presidential candidate — says during the election campaign. It also taught me I could live a lot less painful life by not getting personally invested in the process and for that reason I have never volunteered to work in a political campaign again (I have worked in many as a "hired gun") and I have never again voted for a Presidential candidate nominated by either the Democrat or Republican party since 1964. If I can’t trust any of them, if I already know I can’t believe anything they promise me, how do they expect me to vote for them?

But this attitude helped me significantly in what became my career choice – journalism. It gave me the sense of objectivity, the tenet of fairness, I needed to succeed in this profession. In other words, it taught me to be equally nasty to everyone, but that’s fairness because it’s treating everyone you come in contact with exactly the same way.

And from this objective vantage point, in which I neither favored nor supported either Republican Donald Trump or Democrat Hillary Clinton my overall observation is that Trump was a terribly flawed candidate who ran a brilliant, focused campaign and that Clinton was an equally flawed candidate who didn’t. Trump’s overarching message throughout the campaign was "Make America Great Again," which, in my inbred cynicism resulting from the ‘64 campaign, I translated into "Make America White Again." Clinton’s overarching message throughout the campaign was … well, come to think of it, I have no idea what it was. It might have been something like "Happy Together" or "Forward Together" or something along those lines that would serve as an inspiration to absolutely no one. Frankly, I have no idea.

For many years I was a partner in a political/media consulting firm alongside two of the most brilliant strategically political minds I have ever known — the late Ken Fairchild and Lisa LeMaster, who, as far as I know, is still spinning political magic from her Dallas base of operations. One of the first and perhaps the most important lesson I learned from them is that the side in a campaign that establishes the agenda wins the election. Now the other side may argue your agenda is all wrong, it’s terrible for the entire human race — and as long as we have that precious freedom of speech in this country, the other side has every right to make those arguments. But if that does, in fact, becomes what the other side focuses on as its argument, the debate centers on your point of view and you win. One of the most brilliant tactics Trump pulled off in this campaign was he made the agenda in this Presidential campaign — right from the moment he rode down that elevator in Trump Tower to announce his candidacy — Donald Trump. The two sides of the debate were between those who supported Trump and those who absolutely detested him. But as soon as Donald Trump — what he said, what he said, even what he grabbed — became the most debated topic in this campaign, Trump was on his way to victory. He knew it, he successful exploited it and he let it carry him, no matter how flawed he might be, all the way to the White House.

One of the other lessons I learned from Ken Fairchild and Lisa LeMaster was to identify your "target audience" and then "persuade the persuadables." They showed the political landscape could be represented on a piece of paper by a straight line divided into three parts: (1) Those who were firmly on your side, (2) Those who were firmly on the opposite side and (3) Those you were not sure of." And the purpose of any political campaign was to concentrate on persuading those in the third group and comforting/reassuring those in the first one, but definitely not to waste a bit of time talking to the second group since, by definition, you’re not going to be able to change their minds anyway. Trump was also brilliant following this tactic; Clinton, not so much. Why she spent so much time preaching in Republican strongholds will forever be a mystery to me (even though, having worked closely with Clinton on other issues involving working conditions and undue political influence in Northwest Arkansas I know her core political beliefs are far more Eisenhower Republican than Warren Democrat. So that might have been one reason; she felt more comfortable talking to them even if she knew she was never going to harvest any votes from that group). But Trump inherently knew he was never going to convince that person who regarded him, possibly quite accurately, as a bigoted, sexist, no-nothing misogynist who wasn’t qualified to be President, to come around after listening to him and say "You know, Donald, I’ve been wrong all this time and you’re right." It was never going to happen and Trump did not waste any time trying to make it happen.

Yet another lesson Fairchild and LeMaster imparted was, of course, KISS — "Keep It Simple, Stupid." Trump successfully adhered to that. While Clinton was all over the map talking about the high costs of a college education, pay equity, LBGT equality, criminal justice reform, women’s rights — all worthy discussion topics to have on a policy level — they don’t comprise a focused, target campaign message. Trump, on the other hand, had one overall topic: Jobs. He decided his target audience was white working class Americans, regardless of party affiliation (exit polls revealed he convinced many white working class voters who supported Obama in 2008 and 2012 to vote for him this time around; i.e., he "persuaded the persuadables") and he convinced them he was going to bring back the jobs they lost when our economy moved from an industrial/manufacturing-based one to a service/technology-oriented one or he was going to provide better paying jobs to the under-employed. His outlandish promises to build a wall along the border, to deport all illegal immigrants, to ban other immigrants from entering the country could be translated into "I know that your good-paying manufacturing jobs have been replaced by jobs in fast food restaurants and at the local Wal-Mart and all those are taken by illegal immigrants because they are not only willing but even anxious to work at these ridiculously low wages, but, don’t worry, I have a plan to get those jobs back for you." His anti free-trade tirades all revolve around jobs that used to be located here and are now located in other countries because they can pay lower wages.

So these became the alternatives for many blue- and white-collar working class Americans —like I said earlier, many of whom supported both of President Obama’s candidacies: "Let’s see, I can either vote to put a roof over my head and food on the table for me and my family or I can vote for cheaper college education, LBGT rights, women’s rights, etc." It became an easy decision and it was one based, as it should be, more on the message and less on the messenger.

He even went so far as to explain how he was going to create those jobs. He’s absolutely correct when he says our infrastructure is crumbling. Try flying into LaGuardia Airport and then try to convince anyone it was a pleasant experience. How’s Amtrak working for you? Do you feel absolutely safe and perfectly secure every time you cross that bridge over the Mississippi, the Missouri, or the Hudson River. How about those over the Rio Grande? Jeez, how about those over the Colorado or the Trinity? A massive investment in replacing, repairing and upgrading this infrastructure will unquestionably create millions of well paying white-collar as well as blue-collar jobs. And the attractiveness of the possibility of all those jobs, combined with the fact that Clinton failed to inspire her support base, her Group One (as evidenced by the fact that Trump won even though he received fewer votes than John McCain in 2008 or Mitt Romney in 2012 and that Clinton received around seven million fewer votes than Obama) , is what carried Trump to victory.

And his final piece of strategic political brilliance was spending all his time and energy in the last days of the campaign delivering that message where it had the most impact -- in Pennsylvania, in Michigan, in Ohio, in Wisconsin -- states Clinton took for granted because she figured they were safely behind her "Big Blue Wall," a decision, as it turned out, that proved to be fatal to her Presidential aspirations.

But this brings me back to my original premise. Can you believe him when he says he will create these jobs. Like I said, I’ve never believed in the promises of a major party Presidential candidate for the last 52 years and I have no reason to start now.

What’s unique this time around, however, is the major pushback Trump will receive will come from his own party. Because of their overtly conservative fiscal philosophies Republicans don’t believe in investing in infrastructure. That, to them, is simply another example of a big government spending program. That money should be spent on defense projects and fighting wars in far off lands. And House and Senate Republicans have successfully thwarted all attempts at achieving any form of comprehensive immigration reform.

But the other thing I learned from my disastrous experience in 1964 is, that when it comes to politics — especially presidential politics — it’s all about the winning, not necessarily the governing.

The brilliance of Donald Trump

The way to achieve electoral victory in any political contest, especially when there is an above-average number of contenders, is to set the agenda. It doesn’t matter if you’re right or wrong; if everyone is arguing about your topics, you win. No one knows this better and no one has capitalized on this strategy better than GOP presidential contender Donald Trump.

Today it doesn’t seem like anyone in politics is talking about anything else than Trump’s horrendous, stupid and unconstitutional idea to ban all Muslims from entering the United States. However, the illegitimacy of Trump’s idea is completely irrelevant; all that matters is everyone is talking about it and that means everyone is talking about Trump and no one else. And when that happens, Trump wins.

This is important because it boils the field down to a contest between Trump and all those other candidates who disagree with Trump. And this is important because as strong as Trump has appeared in all the polling we’ve seen, he still isn’t anywhere close to claiming the support of more than 50 percent of likely Republican voters. That means, obviously, more than half of those voters don’t plan to cast their ballots for Trump.

So Trump is playing the media like a video game he has mastered and the media is reacting exactly the way Trump wants them to. "Talk about me, me, me. What I say isn’t important. But as long as you’re talking about only me, you’re not talking about any of the other candidates, unless, in the off-chance, your quoting what they have to say about me, me, me."

There are plenty of more important stories the media should be concentrating on, including one that could have a far more profound effect on our democracy than whether Trump will ever get to establish a religious litmus test for immigrants to this country. The U.S. Supreme Court is hearing arguments today on a suit filed by a pair of Texans who claim voting districts should not be based on population, but on the number of voters in each district. This is simply another attempt by Republican Tea Party right-wingnuts to strip representation from minorities, since minorities tend to congregate in urban areas and this suit seeks to strip more diverse urban areas of representation in congress, state legislatures, etc., and allow more representation is less populated, less diverse rural areas.

The fallacy in this argument is that elected representatives must represent everyone, not just those who bother to vote. That’s the basis of our system of government. That doesn’t mean the Supreme Court will do the right thing (see Bush v Gore, see Citizens United).

It’s interesting to note exactly who is filing this suit. According to Mother Jones, "One is a Texas tea party activist who has promoted a conspiratorial film suggesting President Barack Obama’s real father was Frank Marshall Davis, a supposed propagandist for the Communist Party. The other is a security guard and religious fundamentalist who believes the Earth doesn’t revolve around the sun and that unicorns were real." I’m not making this up. You can learn a whole lot more about these crazies by reading this.

But no one is talking about this threat to our voting rights, because Trump has managed to divert all the attention to himself.

What I was thinking about when the election results became official

Now every single parent in this country can look their child in the eye and say: "You can become anything you want to be" and be telling the truth.

I remembered back a little more than 40 years ago when my little brother and I battled racist officials (one of whom, a deputy sheriff in Mississippi, threatened the life of my 2-year-old niece) just to secure African-Americans the right to register to vote and then get them to the polls. Oh, how I wished my brother could have lived to see this day! "Jim, my brother, your sacrifices, your hard work, your dedication, was not in vain." This nation has come such a long way just in my adult life.

In his elegant concession speech last night, John McCain once again seemed to be the American I had long admired and not the nasty politician who fashioned a campaign built on fear and anger. He will become the ranking minority member of the Senate Armed Services Committee so it won't be long before we know whether McCain's pledge of cooperation was more than just words.

Sarah Palin's impact on the history of national politics will fall right below that of Dan Quayle or Sargent Shriver.

Barack Obama's quest was long and difficult. Now, however, comes the really hard part. He must find a way to end the folly in Iraq so the country can focus on the real war on terror in Afghanistan. He must make sure the Bush administration's bailout plan is administered fairly and with complete transparency. After years of denial, America must accept a leadership role in finding ways to control climate change by focusing on efforts to develop clean energy technologies.

All in all, it was a great day for America and the world. It wasn't perfect by any means (i.e., Texas Republican Sen. John Cornyn, who said judges have only themselves to blame for the violent acts committed against them, who likes to headline events for leading anti-Semites and Holocaust revisionists, and who, as attorney general, lost 2,200 jobs and $60 million in payroll in the El Paso area as a favor for lobbyist and contributor Jack Abramoff, was re-elected), but it was a great start. With an increased Democratic majority, words of cooperation from Republicans like Mr. McCain (with whom Cornyn has constantly battled) and since Cornyn is disliked by members of his own party in the Senate, I don't think he will cast much of a shadow on the public arena.

The last presidential candidate I worked to elect was Robert Kennedy who, 40 years ago, said:
"People are selfish. But they can also be compassionate and generous, and they care about the country. But not when they feel threatened. That's why this is such a crucial time. We can go in either direction. But if we don't make a choice soon, it will be too late to turn things around. I think people are willing to make the right choice. But they need leadership. They're hungry for leadership."

I think Americans have often dreamed they lived in a country that was optimistic, that looked forward to a brighter future, that was not afraid to take great risks. Today we find ourselves living in such a land.

Obama way ahead in newspaper endorsements

Barack Obama has been endorsed by 194 newspapers, compared to the 82 (including the Dallas Morning News) that have endorsed John McCain. Four years ago, that margin was a lot closer with 213 newspapers endorsing John Kerry and 205 for George Bush. Thirty-eight papers that endorsed Bush in 2004 (including the Fort Worth Star Telegram) have endorsed Obama this year. Four that endorsed Kerry in 2004 endorsed McCain this time.

More newspapers (11) in Texas endorsed McCain than in any other state. The Texas papers, besides the Morning News, endorsing McCain are Amarillo Globe News, Beaumont Enterprise, Corpus Christi Caller-Times, Galveston Daily News, Kerrville Daily Times, Lubbock Avalanche-Journal, New Braunfels Herald-Zeitung, San Antonio Express-News, Wichita Falls Times Record News, Tyler Morning Telegraph. In addition to the Fort Worth paper, the other Texas newspapers to have endorsed Obama are Austin American-Statesman, Bryan-College Station Eagle, Houston Chronicle, Longview News-Journal, Lufkin Daily News, San Angelo Standard Times.

The Boy on the Bus

Every year on April 1, each of the British television networks insert into their evening newscasts an April Fools feature. One of the great ones was about the annual Swiss spaghetti harvest. If this had been done it England, it could have been another. And then there's this offering from "Andy, The Fonz and I" that seemed worth passing along as well.

Sarah's Saturday Night

I'll admit it! Following the Texas-Missouri football game, I was among the record number of viewers who turned to the local NBC affiliate to see Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin's appearance on "Saturday Night Live." Nothing much to say about it except I made the mistake of not changing the channel right after Ms. Palin's opening bit and suffered through guest host Josh Brolin looking uncomfortable during his opening monologue and an embarrassingly unfunny skit in which Brolin appeared as a man dining with friends at a Japanese restaurant where he was planning to propose to his girlfriend. I have maintained SNL has not been worth watching since the great John Belushi-Chevy Chase-Jane Curtain et al opening years and what I saw this past Saturday sure solidified those feelings. I've seen funnier funerals.

Colin Powell's Presidential Endorsement

Army four-star general and President Bush's former Secretary of State Colin Powell's endorsement yesterday of Barack Obama was not so much a repudiation of John McCain, although he did question whether McCain really grasped the causes of the current financial crisis and he had some harsh words about the negative direction of McCain's campaign, as much as it was an indictment of Powell's own Republican party, which, he said, is moving too far to the right. Powell is a pragmatist and he see's his party being controlled by the neoconservatives.

I was particularly moved when Powell talked about this picture he saw of a mother at the grave of her soldier-son slain in Iraq and I thought he made a superb point when he talked about the Republican party's whisper campaign concerning Obama's religious beliefs. Powell also questioned McCain's selection of Sarah Palin as a running mate saying she clearly wasn't ready to assume the presidency.

I have nothing concrete to base this on, but I also have a feeling that Powell's endorsement is as much a repudiation of President Bush as it was an endorsement of Barack Obama. I believe Powell believes his legacy has been tainted by Bush and I'm betting he is particularly angry that Bush provided him with false intelligence about Iraq's "weapons of mass destruction" that Powell took before the United Nations Security Council in February 2003. I also know Powell did not completely endorse the invasion of Iraq and said repeatedly that Bush had committed too few troops to make the incursion a success, but he recommendations and advice were repeatedly undercut by neocons Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

My favorite line from last night's Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner

The Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner is an annual charity fund raiser for Catholic Charities, named in honor of the former governor of New York and the first Catholic to run for President. The first dinner was held in 1945, a year after Smith died, and since 1960, when John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon appeared at the dinner, it has been an election-year tradition, for the most part, that two major party candidates attend. There have been exceptions. In 1984, Walter Mondale opted out saying he needed time to prepare for a Presidential debate with Ronald Reagan. In 1996 the Archdiocese of New York opted not to invite the Presidential candidates because John Cardinal O'Connor was furious at President Clinton for vetoing a bill outlawing some late-term abortions. The candidates weren't invited in 2004 either because of Democrat (and Catholic) John Kerry's pro-choice stances.

However, both John McCain and then Barack Obama came to last night's white-tie dinner to trade one-liners. My personal favorite was this from Obama: “I think it is a tribute to American democracy that with two weeks left and a hard-fought election, the two of us could come together, and sit down at the same dinner table without preconditions.”

Where the candidates stand on closing the "innovation gap"

The United States, for decades, was the leader of the technological revolution. Not so much anymore. Starting in 2002, we imported more high-technology products than we exported and that difference has been growing ever since. What programs do the two Presidential candidates have in mind for closing or even eliminating that gap?

Republican John McCain offers the same answer for this as he does for practically everything: cut corporate taxes and end "burdensome regulations." Democrat Barack Obama, on the other hand, sees a more active role for the federal government to finance science, math and engineering education and in research that results in industrial spinoffs.

Obama is a firm believer in evolution and claims the teaching of intelligent design and other creationist theories clouds a student's understanding of science. McCain says he believes in evolution, but that students should be taught all points of view.

Upon further review, the ruling on the field is reversed

It turns out that "Joe the Plumber," who really isn't a licensed plumber after all -- he just works for a plumbing company, would not have to payer higher taxes after all if he purchased the company he worked for. Joe has become the conservative's new poster boy after he confronted Barach Obama last weekend in Holland, Ohio, and got the Democratic Presidential candidate to admit Joe's taxes would increase if he purchased the company, Newell Plumbing and Heating (which has two employees: Joe and its owner Al Newell) and it earned more than $250,000 annually. According to tax analysts "neither (Joe's) personal taxes nor those of the business where he works are likely to rise if Mr. Obama’s tax plan were to go into effect." Of course, now the question is would he pay them regardless. The state of Ohio has filed against a lien against Joe seeking unpaid back taxes.

Sarah Palin to do her Tina Fey imitation on SNL?

GOP vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, whose been the subject of a withering imitation on "Saturday Night Live" by writer/actress/comedian Tina Fey, has agreed to appear this week on SNL. What makes it even more intriguing is the host of this week's edition of SNL is Josh Brolin, who stars as George W. Bush in director Oliver Stones's new film "W."

Meanwhile, Palin's running mate made up last night for his cancelled appearance on David Letterman's a couple of weeks ago. John McCain told Letterman, who has been highly critical of McCain since he cancelled an appearance on his show at the last minute on Sept. 24, "I screwed up" by not appearing and then withstood a barrage of questions from Letterman on Palin's qualifications and his campaign tactics that were as tough as anyting in the Presidential debates. When Letterman asked McCain if he thought Palin was qualified to lead the country, the GOP nominee replied: "In all due respect, one of the people I admired most was an obscure governor of a southern state called Arkansas and he turned out to be a fairly successful president. Ronald Reagan was a cowboy, no experience in international affairs. I think she has shown leadership."

After questioning McCain's and Palin's tactics trying to tie Democrat Barack Obama to former Weather Underground member William Ayers, Letterman asked McCain if he knew Watergate burglar G. Gordon Liddy.

"I know Gordon Liddy," McCain replied. "He paid his debt, he went to prison ... I'm not in any way embarrassed to know Gordon Liddy."

Letterman responded: "You understand the same case could be made of your relationship with him as is being made with William Ayers?"

Letterman also mentioned Ayers in his opening monlogue: "It was interesting last night during the debate. At one point, John McCain brought up Barack Obama's relationship with '60s radical William Ayers. And then Barack Obama brings up McCain's relationship with John Brown at Harper's Ferry."

Who will "Joe the Plumber" will vote for?

No one, it turns out. After last night's debate in which the name Joe the Plumber was invoked enough times to qualify him for his own Disney special, some enterprising souls went searching for Joe Wurzelbacher (his full name) in the Secretary of State's voting rolls for Joe's hometown of Holland, Ohio. And guess what? They found a Robert Lee and a Frank Edward Wurzelbacher, but no Joe. There goes another vote lost for John McCain.

Update: The AP is reporting that Joe the Plumber is not a plumber, either -- at least not one licensed by the state of Ohio, which requires plumbers to be licensed. And it also says he owes the state $1,182 in back income taxes.

Blame a pair of SMU profs for those squiggly lines on your TV during the Presidential debates

CNN has used this graph during the Presidential debates and the vice-presidential encounter to show the world how a group of 30 "undecided" voters are reacting in real time to what the candidates are saying. Now I've learned that CNN's focus group was managed by two professors of communications at SMU, Rita Kirk and Dan Schill. Here's an excerpt from a story in American Prospect that tries to explain the whole process:

Kirk instructs participants to adjust their dials based on whether they have "a favorable or unfavorable response" at any given moment, but leaves determining what that means to the individual.

Some response are fairly consistent. "Audiences don't like it when candidates fight with each other," Kirk says. And, in a bit of news surely heartening to Jim Lehrer, "audiences want people to follow the rules, so any time you see rule-breaking they dial it down." Facts are preferred to rhetoric, and while audiences don't typically like personal anecdotes, says Kirk, if "they believe it's a natural expression, they react very favorably." Joe Biden's misty-eyed moment at the end of the vice-presidential debate was a big hit.

These are heartening findings, but there's no way to know if they represent participants' true reactions or what they think they should feel -- as Kirk acknowledges, a significant body of research shows negative ads work even though voters, independents especially, claim to hate them.

What's more, the process of dialing itself changes how the participants experience the debate. "[Participants] say they pay more attention, because they are focusing on the words," says Kirk.

Later in the story, it quotes one Cliff Zukin, director of the public-policy program at Rutgers University and former head of the American Association for Public Opinion Research, as saying the methodology of the SMU profs is all a bunch of hooey: "It has no scientific validity -- it's not a sample of anything that has generalized validity."

But then these are professors of communications, not of research or statistics. Whaddya expect?

McCain's (hopefully) last hurrah

John McCain's best line during last night's debate was when he tried to separate himself from George Bush by telling opponent Barack Obama "I'm not George Bush. If you wanted to oppose George Bush, you should have run for President four years ago."

The problem, however, was that throughout the rest of the debate McCain outlined economic policies that are carbons of the Bush policies that got us into this financial mess in the first place. Instead of using the final Presidential debate to outline a way to get us out of this financial crisis, McCain stuck to the same Bush trickle-down theories -- cut taxes and government spending. And what he means by this is cut the taxes of the richest of American citizens and cut spending in those programs that working Americans desperately need right now.

McCain also echoed the nasty rhetoric his campaign has been espousing in these last weeks, especially when he continuously trudged out the parable of "Joe the Plumber" to accuse Obama of engaging in exactly the "class warfare" that has been at the heart of McCain's campaign.

And, what has to be the biggest shock to my sense of fair play, came when McCain refused to acknowledge, let alone repudiate, the erroneous and absurd campaign tactics of running mate Sarah Palin and tried to paint himself as the victim of unfair attacks.

What has become absolutely clear these past few weeks is that John McCain has absolutely no idea how to steer this country out of its current financial problems. His call this week to cut capital gains tax in half is ridiculous. First of all, the only individuals with any capital gains these days are the incredibly rich. Second, such a plan would only put this country further in debt.

I did like his idea to eliminate the income tax on unemployment benefits for the next two years, but I wished he had supported, like Obama has, extending these benefits. His homeowner rescue plan also burdens taxpayers by forcing us to purchase these loans at prices higher than the values of the homes. Obama, on the other hand, would force bankruptcy judges to adjust mortgage values before they are sold.

Obama's plans to put a 90-day moratorium on foreclosures, to raise the minimum wage and tie it to inflation and provide more money for state and local budgets, are ways to help those who really need it. McCain's plan, on the other hand, to make permanent Bush's tax cuts, only helps the top 1 percent of Americans.

And what program did McCain outline last night to create jobs? It was to use “tax cuts that are directed specifically to create jobs.” Exactly the same theory employed by George Bush and there are a lot of us out there waiting for those "benefits" to trickle down to us.

McCain just can't say he's not George Bush. He's got to prove it and so far, when it comes to the economy that is the No. 1 issue today, he has not done so.

Here's an interesting rumor that, if true, should seal an Obama victory

Right now, I see only one way Barack Obama loses this election and that's if John McCain or his surrogates personally drag a handcuffed Osama Bin Laden from an Afghan cave. However, I think the Bush administration has been trying to pull that "October surprise" during the last couple of election cycles without much success.

There is a story going around that shortly after tonight's final Presidential debate, Colin Powell will announce his endorsement of Obama. If that happens, the race is officially over.

A desperate McCain to opt for low road in final debate

An obviously desperate John McCain has decided to resort to character attacks in the final Presidential debate tomorrow with Barack Obama. McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds has told Fox News "I expect John McCain will ask Barack Obama to speak truthfully about his relationship with friend and unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers." And today McCain seems to want to blame Obama for bringing up the subject, because, according to what McCain told a reporter in St. Louis today, Obama said McCain "didn't have the guts" to talk about William Ayers in the final debate.

I don't know if Obama said that or not, but I sure hope he did. Because that obviously means the Democratic nominee is setting a trap for the foundering McCain and the Arizona senator is blindly walking right into it. If, on the other hand, Obama didn't say that, then McCain is simply and out and out liar. He may distort the truth -- both candidates have been guilty of that -- but I can't see McCain sinking lower than he alredy has.

Both McCain and his hatchet-woman running mate Sarah Palin were attacking Obama viciously on this topic last week, much to the delight of their core supporters but much to the chagrin of the rest of the American public. When the inevitable backlash began, they scaled back or, in the words of a campaign official, they put "gloves back on." But Bounds is now hinting the gloves are off again because not only will McCain bring up this irrelevant subject during the debate, but Bounds said, the American television viewing public should brace themselves for a host of new attack ads on Ayers.

For those not keeping up with the William Ayers subject, he is a professor of education at the University of Illinois in Chicago. His wife, Bernardine Dohrn, is a professor at Northwestern University's school of law. In the mid-1990s, Ayers and Dohrn hosted a meet-and-greet party to introduce Obama to their neighbors when Obama was making his first run for the Illinois Senate. Ayers contributed $200 to that Obama campaign. Between 1999 and 2002, both Ayers and Obama served on the board of a not-for-profit foundation called the Woods Fund. That board met four times a year. Ayers and Obama also interacted in their roles with the Annenberg Challenge, a program in Chicago involved in school reform issues.

The issue here, however, is what Ayers did before he met Obama -- before, in fact, he underwent somewhat of a political and personal transformation. Ayers, 63, and Dohrn were members of an anti-Vietnam War organization called the "Weather Underground," which the FBI categorized at the time as a "domestic terrorist group." They spent 10 years as fugitives until they surrendered in 1980. Federal charges against them, however, were dropped.

So McCain and Palin are out their busy linking Obama to Ayers -- not the respected college professor and school reform advocate Ayers, but the "domestic terrorist" Ayers. It just shows how low a man will go when he's only interested in winning at any cost (which was evident when he selected Palin as his running mate).

Why McCain's mortgage buyback plan is a disaster + a reasonable sounding alternative

During the Presidential debate Tuesday, John McCain announced a plan which would compel the Treasury Department to purchase troubled home loans. When he announced it I thought that really wasn't anything new -- that's already allowed in the recently passed and signed "bailout" bill. The only difference, I thought, was that the bailout bill made those purchases optional where McCain seemed to indicate they would be mandatory. However, as usual, the devil is in the details. It's what McCain didn't say about his plan that makes it even more of a disaster for taxpayers and another windfall for McCain's major contributors, the Wall Street financial institutions that caused this economic mess.

Under McCain's plan, taxpayer dollars would be used to buy the distressed mortgages from the banks at full, face value. Only then would the principals be discounted for the homeowner. That's right -- McCain's plan steals from taxpayers and gives that money to the financial institutions. Barack Obama's plan, on the other, requires the lender write down the principal and the only thing taxpayers' monies would be used for is as a guarantee that the loan would be paid. We would, in effect, become co-signers. In that way, the lenders, the borrowers and the taxpayers share in the effort to stabilize the homeowning market.

I also read today a proposal from Ambassador Marc Ginsberg who recommends the equivalent of a "New Deal" plan for current and prospective homeowners, much of which made a lot of sense to me. Ambassador Ginsberg recommends Obama enact a version of his economic stimulus package once he becomes President, assuming (probably correctly) that McCain the Deregulator is not going to be interested in that much government action to help middle class taxpayers purchase or stay in their homes. I especially liked his recommendation for a "government-guaranty fixed rate mortgage program offered through banks that would set a federally-mandated interest rate ceiling of 5.5 percent on 30 year fixed rate conforming mortgages," incentives to banks for "converting conforming adjustable rate mortgages to fixed rate mortgages" and his call for a "payment holiday" of 90 days to enable borrowers to regain their financial footing. Check it out.

Whoops

Who was John McCain referring to in this clip when he talks about "my fellow prisoners?" Sounds like a horrible Freudian slip to me.

Last night's debate

I personally found last night's debate to be a a major disappointment, with neither candidate really saying anything new, with the exception of McCain saying he would order the Treasury Department to buy troubled mortgages and negotiate new ones based on depressed values. The recently passed bailout bill already allows the Treasury Department to do this, but doesn't mandate it. My problem with this suggestion is that Treasury Department money is taxpayer money and it does more to bail out the greedy mortgage institutions that got us into this mess. Why not allow the courts to order the banks themselves to re-finance these mortgages? But then those institutions are some of McCain's biggest contributors.

All in all, I did not see anything that would alter the opinion of any voter last night.

The debate did seem to reinforce the notion of late conservative journalist Jude Wanniski who once referred to the Republican party as the "daddy" party and the Democratic party as the "mommy" party. When McCain talked about drilling for oil and building nuclear power plants as ways to re-invigorate the economy, Obama talked about education and health care, specifically citing the need for insurance that covers maternity care and mammograms.

Even McCain's own advisors admit that if the economy remains the primary issue between now and election Day, Obama wins. That's why McCain has sought to refocus the campaign with a series of appalling, racist commercials and has unleashed running mate Sarah Palin who has been going around making what can, at best, misleading and, at worst, libelous, attack speeches aimed at undermining Obama's character. Fortunately, McCain did his best not resort to those tactics last night, slipping up only by referring to Obama once as "that one" and to the Democrat's associates as "cronies."

There's one more debate scheduled for next Wednesday. I'm hoping we'll hear specific answers and straight talk in that one, but I wouldn't put a lot of money on it that we will. One more thing I would like to see in the final debate is more talk about "Here's precisely what I would do once I get into office" and eliminate all that "Here's why you can't trust my opponent" garbage. I really got tired at all finger pointing last night. I'm convinced it's those kind of tactics that convince American to simply say "a pox on both your houses" and boycott the election process.

Tonight we need answers, not evasions, no pre-planned speeches

Either Democrat Barack Obama or Republican John McCain is going to inherit one helluva financial mess next January and tonight, during their second televised debate, the two must outline to American voters what they plan to do about it.

Each candidate began their respective campaigns making promises and outlining programs. But then the financial crisis changed the entire landscape and the candidates have yet to fully come to grips with that reality. They need to explain how they will change their priorities in the wake of what has happened to our economy in the last months.

Mr. Obama has grudgingly admitted that some of his pet programs in energy independence, education and health care may have to be delayed, but he has yet to offer specifics. McCain just keeps talking about cutting federal spending and examining all areas of government, topics that have absolutely no relevance to the issue at hand.

The crisis is not about spending, it's about taxes and both candidates need to come face-to-face with that reality. Mr. Obama keeps talking about raising taxes on the wealthy to pay for his programs, but in this economy, I'm not sure that would be the proper course to take right now. Maybe in a few years, but not now. Mr. Obama needs to (1) accept this fact and (2) explain to us how this will change his priorities.

The heart of McCain's economic plan is to extend the Bush tax cuts permanently and recommend billions of new tax cuts. This is a sure recipe for disaster and McCain must admit tonight that this plan would implode our economy because it would destroy our ability to borrow the money needed to pay for the bailout.

Above all, however, we need to hear from each candidate how they plan to advocate for homeowners. At least Obama favors amending the bankruptcy code so courts can modify mortgages. McCain mistakenly thinks the mortgage industry will fix itself, some how, some way.

And finally, we need to hear specifically what each candidate would do to make sure something like this never happens again. Obama at least says he favors additional regulations. That's not enough, we need to hear specifics. Of course, Obama's stance is better than McCain's. Until just a few days ago, the GOP nominee has followed the Bush line of deregulation, which is what got us in this mess.

So please, guys, give the American people specific answers tonight.