I'd like to see Obama make the counter argument - how many filibusters and procedural games the Republicans have played over the last two years, their resistance to ethics rules changes (including transparency of earmarks), the bizarre, insincere accusations the Republicans have thrown about, etc. It's not a struggle between Dems and Reps, but rather between good government and bad. And that's why Obama spurned lobbyist donations. while pushing for stricter ethics rules.

McCain can point out a perfect example of the damage one party rule can cause. Just look at the shit hole that six years of republicans has put us in!

The problem here is that McCain wants to continue the same economic theory , if elected, that got us into this mess.

I'm not so sure that this isn't an effective argument to make (emphasizing that 'effective' is distinct from 'makes logical sense'), and at least it's an argument that is true: if Hon. Sen. McCain is elected, there will be a divided government. Perhaps we should give him credit for at least finding a pitch grounded in fact.

He's an old man who learned a few effective one-liners a couple of decades ago and doesn't (can't) realize that the world has changed.

To tell the truth, when I heard Michelle Bachman on Hardball, I was disgusted, sure, but not upset. Same ol' we've been exposed to for years. Anti-American, terrorist sympathizers, unpatriotic, don't support the troops--that's been their stock go-to idea since, well, maybe 1946 with Nixon and the Pink Lady. But the tried and true are falling on different ears now. And accusations that should have always been shockingly unacceptable finally are.

John McCain is probably the right message-bearer for a party with calcified ideas, a party virtually apoplectic over the failure of whipper-snappers to understand the Scary.

Here's the self proclaimed maverick who's going to shake up the Washington establishment. What does he propose?

Voter for me so that I can make sure that Republicans can keep obstructing progress.

That sounds like a winning strategy to me; especially coming from someone who's been in congress so long that he doesn't know any other way.

What's comical is that George Bush has pushed us toward the bete noir of "socialism."

What's comical is that George Bush has pushed us toward the bete noir of "socialism."

Skoal baby skoal

Spiking the Kristol Kool-aid with some Creme de Frum.
All John needs now is a dash of Limbaugh nutmeg, a pinch of Coulter bile, and some Malkin mace to unite the country and chase him home to victory...

Nostrovia!

I think it might be an effective argument. I think Pelosi and Reid (or at least Congress) have even lower approval ratings than Bush, and yoking McCain to Bush has worked for Obama. Heck, it even scares me a little, and I'm a Dem.

Do I want one party in control of the government, puting together a plan based on their principles and being held accountable for that plan? Or do I want the executive and legislative branches at war with each other for 4 years, with McCain and 41 Senators pretending they have a mandate?

Let me guess.

Bill Clinton and the greatest prosperity we have seen relied on managing the gridlock in Congress.

Gridlock works because the two sides cannot avoid working the great contradictions of our time.

The opposing view, that we should have a single party government because voters want that is just more vacuous than McCain;s proposal. The opposing view, articulated by Mr. Benen would have us decide which party we like best, then stop the debate.

Arguing for Mr. Benen, which I do now, says that the debate should be about policy formulation, and the candidates and their co-candidates who win the debate should take office. I can buy that, but a policy debate does not argue for a single party government either because both sides will seek resolution in Congress, not in the election, for the final compromise.

What is Congress for if not to debate policy?

It might be an effective argument in a time when things are going well (or OK) and you want changes/reforms made cautiously. I don't think the voters perceive the current moment as such a time.

I think for McCain to make the argument work he's got to point to an example of one party control that was a disaster.

Would McCain invoke Bush/GOP control as a disaster?

I doubt he's wiling to do this.

But what if he did?

He's sorta got to admit the ideology he's pushing was a failure when it was tried.

And McCain has to admit that he didn't effectively stand-up against the excesses and criminality of the Bush administration.

Absent an example of one party control being a disaster, it's a hard argument to make.

I suppose McCain could argue that have Clinton as POTUS and GOP in control of Congress was a success. But I don't think McCain can credibly make this argument since he voted to remove Clinton from office. And I think McCain praising Clinton would cause turnout of the GOP base to plummet.

This argument is meant to feed into the paranoia and fear of Obama in office--they're all taking over--look out!!

Actually I disagree, and think this party dominance argument has resonance with a lot of voters: not enough to reverse the current Obama trend, but worrisome anyway since all elections are close and at risk in the age of Diebold and partisan State Ss-o-S.

Interesting in any case, how little concern the Establishment had for this problem such as it is, when Republicans were benefiting from total party control. Check to see which of those saying maybe it really is worth stopping Democrats from having all three branches, were also saying it eight years ago etc. who on the other foot.

On "Meet the Press" McCain proclaims that he's not loosing and guarantees that he's going to win this coming November.

Does this quote fit with Karl Rove's "The Math"?

or does it go more with other famous Republican talking points:

"We will be greeted as liberators"
"Mission Accomplished"
"It's going to be a cake-walk"
"Mushroom clouds"
"Nobody saw this financial crisis coming"

the list is too long to compile here...

Republicans are bad for the economy.

They proved it. Now move aside.

So McCain thinks that Republican obstructionism is something that should be continued? To reject legislation for the sake of rejecting it or because it was a dem who sponsored it? Because that is what has gone on now from the R side of the aisle since 2006. When they had control of both houses before that, they completely cut the dems out of the process.

Now McCain tells us that we need to keep the PARTISAN spirit alive??

We need a grown-up leader who cuts through this kind of bullshit. It is clear that Obama understands that this R v D game has got to end. We have SERIOUS problems that need grown-ups to roll up their sleeves and get to work. We can't afford more of this playground crap of us-versus-them. The people who have been key players in the Partisan efforts that have ground everything to a halt in congress have got to go.

There are moderate republicans everywhere who see this, and are supporting Obama. There are moderate republicans in congress who will likely see their careers continue. But then there are those who not only are drinking the partisan kool-aide, but are swimming in it. These people, like McCain are now arguing that the partisan, gridlocking, Rep v Dem game needs to continue.

I say: the partisan, gridlock, them-versus-us game that has been played for the last decade has got to come to an end. We need a president who will set up a White House and Cabinet that will truly work with both parties for the best interest of all of America. Between the two of them, Obama is the man for the job.

Anyone want to bet how long it'll be before we start hearing the phrase "term limit" again?

If Democrats are really lucky, McCain will keep this up and make it his central focus for the next nine days

This is the McCain campaign. They'll be on to a new 'message' by Tuesday.

"This sounds more like a fundraising pitch than a general election argument

Indeed. I've felt since the choice of Palin was announced that we were witnessing more of a fundraising campaign than a serious run for the White House. Palin was a clear message to the right-wing crazies that it's okay for them to send their hard earned cash to the GOP. At this point, continued donations from the deluded is all the GOP has left.

I'm not going to debate the two party system because that's not the real question. The Republican party is afraid to ask America the real question:

Is the Republican party viable?

We'll know what America thinks about that after the vote.

As to using the Clinton years as an example of how the system should work? I don't buy that at all. The economic experts are urging a massive infusion of government spending as the correct way to ride out this "severe recession" (that's what we now call depressions, apparently).

The Clinton years are already being thrown out there as a straw man argument to force the next President into a severe austerity mode to balance the budget where no money will be available other than the two trillion we will spend propping up rich people on Wall St.

Signs are at this point that all of the measures taken so far to get banks back to a more normal operation have failed and new measures requiring much more direct government regulation and intervention will be necessary. Plus it's also becoming obvious that the "real economy" in America is also flatlining. If we continue to throw money at the banks without additional action in the greater economy, all we will end up with is a great depression where we have given all the money to the ultra rich.

If we end up with a large enough minority of Republican (or whatever they end up being called) after this vote we will have to fight like hell to get the necessary legislation to prevent another great depression. And this leads us back to the real question - is the Republican party viable? Is it able to adjust back to REALITY and act in the best interests of the country? Or will it continue to be nothing more than a "value voters" shell game which sucks the money out of the middle class and gives it to the ultra rich?

My suspicion is that the Republican party will be forced to re-think who it represents and what they represent after this election. I don't think the country can afford to have any of the Republicans roadblocks in Congress acting like nutjobs. There is enough policy diversity in the Democratic party to ensure that the solutions to our current crisis are given a fair and vigorous debate.

It is maddening!

I don't know that the argument about the 'danger' of a unified congress and Presidency will necessarily sound so stupid to non-partisans. Obama has clearly won over a large proportion of the American electorate that is in the centrist middle. That does not follow they are enthusiasts for Democratic party platforms as such (or Republican), but perhaps rather for the hint of competence Obama brings.

As such, for McCain it may not be a winning argument, but it might be a winning argument for the Republican party looking to split centrist, non-partisan votes between a lost cause (Presidency) and local votes.

"All in" is another one of those cliches that could stand to be retired. If you are going to use a somewhat shopworn figure, at least use it correctly: McCain has gone "all in" several times already, and crapped out, so he really doesn't have any chips left. Any position he takes this late in the day is fairly low-risk, since he is nearly certain to lose whatever he does.

Moreover, in poker one generally goes "all in" from a superior (or at least equal) financial/strategic position to try to buffalo the opponent into folding. It would be a bad idea to go "all in" if your money's failing and your cards are bad, to get back into the game. Again, not really an apt way of describing McCain's position.

If you must use a metaphor from sports or games, the hail-mary pass or the court-length buzzer-beater shot would be better. Though even those analogies would require McCain to be within a single scoring opportunity, and he isn't.

I am encouraged to see the GOP party gone completely Manson'd: "I'm not crazy, you're crazy - you're the one in the cage, you're the animal!"

Until the last stooge falls (or is voted out)!

So, if the rethugs are in total control, as they were in the first six years of the Bush/McCain era, then it is OK, but if the Dems should get the same power: woe be us???
IIIII get it. Yup. Be afraid, be very afraid, and do as I say, not as I/we do! Yup.

I don't get the sense McCain is trying to sway undecided, independent or even moderate voters at this point, he's just trying to rally the GOP base so he's not completely trounced at the voting booth.

This argument might work in a close Senate race, which is why Dole is trying it. Unlikely, but possible to get an 0.5% bump.

Not, however, for President. Even low information voters understand the President has more control over the economy, foreign policy, and pretty much everything else than Congress does. It's why they give Clinton credit for the 1990s and Bush discredit for the last 2 years.

The only reason to vote for a republican seems to be a case against the other guy or the other party.

Not one single argument making the case for republicans.

And for some reason, the electorate is supposed to respond to this argument. It's not even well thought out. The argument will sway some, but even more will conclude that the presidency and majorities in both houses in mandatory to try and offset the damage caused by republican rule.

The republicans have done it to themselves.

As of mid-September, ubs was working to comply with a federal "John Doe" summons seeking the names behind those 19,000 accounts. If the funds in question are indeed taxable assets, ubs's clients may have cost the federal government $2.1 billion or more over seven years. All told, Levin estimates, offshore tax shelters deprive the Treasury of a staggering $100 billion a year.

We dont need a tax cut or increase we need less tax shelters.

Be carefull of the things you ask for. Some times your wishes a granted.

Another problem with this 'scary' appeal is sort of the 'throw the bums out' arguement in reverse. Congress may rank low in the opinion polls, but if asked, many will sdmit THEIR representative is doing fine, it's the other 'bums' they want out.

Well, if McCain is trying to nationalize the fear of a Democratic Senate, it runs up against this same perception in reverse: We dislike our Republican candidate, we're voting Dems..let someone ELSE in some other state vote for the guy they hate.

McCain's pitch is premised on the notion that voters won't think it through, and will prefer gridlock just for the sake of gridlock. -- Steve Benen

That's because McCain himself has that kind of psychological make up; to him, a fight for fight's sake is fun. You may remember how he used to try and attack Obama because Obama never fought against his party, but McCain did. Never mind whether there was a *reason* for Obama to oppose his party or not; a fight, in itself, is the be-all and end-all. Invigorating fun.

So, applying the same measure to others, he assumes they'd also be happy with such a scenario.

McCain's Presidential campaign is premised on the notion that voters won't think it through

Fixed.

McCain is like Bush--win at any cost.

Note was was said about early voting in past elections of Bush:

This was an OLDER interview with Amy Goodman and LA based reported Andy Gumbel, along with Jon Greenbaum of the Voting Rights Project.
This is Andy:
..."in terms of early voting and problems, Florida they started early voting the beginning of last week. There were breakdowns in the internet links apparently between laptop computers linked to the voter registration databases so people couldn’t find out if they were eligible to vote. That caused hours of delay.
In Duval County in Florida, the head of elections there, who is the one who is responsible for disenfranchising thousands of predominantly core, predominantly black, predominantly Democrat-voting voters in 2000, suddenly decided to resign on the very first day of voting, throwing them into complete pandemonium. He cited it where health reasons.

There had been accusations that he wasn’t providing sufficient early voting facilities in black areas of Jacksonville, which is the main town in Duval County. His successor is now going some way to remedy that. Then there are various legal challenges that are going on everywhere over early voting and specifically over the issue of provisional voting.
And... there are in a lot of states, Florida being one, Ohio being another, there are many others as well, there’s this question of what happens if you don’t know where to go vote, because you have either recently moved house or your precinct has moved, and you may or may not have been informed because the information flow is not as sufficient as it should be. And in some cases as one can suspect information flow is deliberately slowed down.
There is discussion of where do you go vote. A lot of voting rights groups and in the states where they feel like it’s to their advantage, the Democratic party has well have been pushing to allow people to vote in any precinct near where they live on the understanding that, of course, if the voting ballot that they receive is then going to be inaccurate for the local races, and that they would be restricted to voting for president and Senate and Congress and whatever races they are eligible to vote for. This has been a subject to rulings by Secretaries of State, by court hearings, by court appeals and things are in sort of a state of flux.
But what I can tell you from my reporting on the ground is Florida is that this is a very, very important issue in certain places. This other places where things are organized better, it’s less important, but where you have a situation where you have a large immigrant population. A large student population, a large population of people who may not have steady jobs where they’re moving around a lot and specifically because of these population flows where the precincts keep changing and where in some cases the district boundaries keep changing, the whole thing is mired in tremendous confusion and this is not a trivial point at all. One can imagine tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands of votes being affected in any given state."

My wife's father is a lifelong Republican, mostly for economic but not social reasons, who is otherwise fairly intelligent and common sensical. This year he has expressed admiration for Obama and toyed with the possibility of voting for a Democrat for the first time, and also expressed complete disgust for McCain and Palin. Yet, he ended up voting for McCain anyway, precisely for the reason of splitting the executive and legislative branches, to increase the likelihood of gridlock.

We've all seen how disastrous Republicans, in the White House, in Congress, on the Supreme Court, have been for our nation.

The future of our nation's children has never been so grim after eight years of almost-uninterrupted conservative/Republican rule.

Any sane American citizen realizes that our nation needs a complete overhaul, an extreme makeover, starting at the top in Washington DC, because conservative/Republican get-rich-quick-schemes and welfare-for-the-wealthy, along with so many disastrous conservative/Republican foreign policies, have done severe damage to our democracy and the future of our nation's children.

But what do I mean by "complete overhaul, an extreme makeover"?

I'm referring to a return to such quaint ideas as upholding and defending our U.S. Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the "rule of law," which have all taken a severe beating under conservative/Republican mis-rule over the past eight years. Plus, holding all the corrupt conservatives/Republicans accountable for all their criminal acts, letting what's left of our justice system take care of them.

A McCain/Palin administration will just continue the same conservative/Republican "above the law" criminal acts, especially since many of the same conservatives/Republicans who've done so much damage to our nation will probably be asked to stay by McCain and Palin, giving them the chance to do even more harm to our country.

Sen. Barack Obama and Sen. Joe Biden present the one and only alternative to what the conservatives/Republicans have done to our nation and the future of our nation's children.

Obama and Biden look and sound like they will bring sanity and an adult, responsible outlook to the White House, selecting people to oversee our federal agencies with a similar sane, adult, responsible outlook...while McCain and Palin look and sound mean, nasty, insane, childish and irresponsible, kind of like George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

Time for a change. Time for sane American citizens to step up and make the only sane choice:

VOTE Obama/Biden '08 ! ! ! !

Democratic-led coalition-building will be nothing like the autocratic Republican version.

Sixty Dem votes in the Senate -- still a long shot -- would include an unreliable guy named Lieberman, as well new faces filling Obama and Biden's seats. It wouldn't be a huge surprise to see a Cabinet post going to John Kerry or some other Senator.

In the House, Blue Dog Democrats will continue to be assertive.

Obama will be decisive, yet not follow in Clinton's footsteps by overreaching in the first 6 weeks. He and Biden will follow through on campaign promises, but tweak their execution to bring Blue Dogs and a couple of Senate Republicans along.

As an example, work toward the repeal of Don't Ask / Don't Tell will be finessed, giving the Pentagon guidance but letting military leaders take the lead.

Republicans will continue to obstruct progress whenever possible.

In short, Democratic control will not be easy, monolithic, or autocratic. Without question, though, it stands the best chance of being effective.

McCain is now grasping at any straw he can reach. While the country is longing for leadership out of this total cockup the Republicans and Bush have made of governance, he offers up an argument for gridlock. Pathetic.

"Senator Obama's tax increase would put even more people out of work," McCain said. "We've seen this before in other countries. It doesn't work."

Hmmm,so the solution is four more years of the the Republicans obviously successful economic policies?