Why the housing crisis hurts

By Contributor Archive

Filed Under Race for White House 2008 on Aug 22 

The McCain camp is already in hysterics about the so-called “Housing Crisis”, indignantly fuming about how everything (Rezko, Ayers, Wright) is “fair game” and how brazen of Obama it was to open this issue. This sentiment has been echoed on Political Derby. As it’s likely to only incite more irrational babble I won’t bother trying to explain why repeating a direct quote is different than casting aspersions on past liaisons, but I will explain why, Obama’s former associations notwithstanding, McCain supporters should worry.

This gaffe evinces a previously inchoate but crucial narrative about the disconnect between McCain’s policies and the economic expediences of most Americans. While it’s true that not having a firm grasp on how many houses you own doesn’t prove in and of itself a disconnect, it helps draw a starker contrast between Obama’s progressive tax plan, which cuts taxes for 80 percent of Americans while raising them primarily on those earning more than $9.1 million yearly, and McCain’s plan, which cuts taxes on those making over $9.1 million, and whose cuts for 80 percent of Americans would be dwarfed by Obama’s by a not-so-piddling 450 percent. (This data comes from the non-partisan Tax Policy Center, though it appeared in David Leonhardt’s NYT article.) This is a very powerful message that until recently hasn’t found a compelling narrative. Given how prominently the economy will play in this election — especially in light of recent developments in Iraq — this should prove quite damaging to McCain.

Moreover, if the importance of the gaffe lies in its poignancy, its beauty is in its simplicity. Here is a quote, direct from the candidate himself in the middle of the campaign, that highlights what should be a serious advantage for Obama. Conversely, the Rezko, Ayers, and Wright affairs all rely on the more difficult to prove transitive property of sleaziness and America-hatred. The Rezko issue is not easy to understand, nor are its implications so direct. What’s more, Wright, and to a certain degree, Ayers, have already been aired ad nauseum. These attacks are not as easily digested, and their relevance is as at best peripheral.

Finally, by refraining from heavily publicizing negative attacks against McCain, Obama has allowed McCain to earn a reputation as a negative campaigner, thus limiting McCain’s credibility to claim umbrage.

All in all, big score for the Obama camp.

Comments

  • AndDru1

    On another note, this gaffe almost guarantees that Pawlenty, not Romney will be McCain’s VP.

    If Mac picks Mittens this narrative will stick, if he picks a Sams Club Republican it won’t. It’s as simple as that.

  • Yeszir

    1. You should use fewer and smaller words to the same thing and appear less pompous
    2. Your article implies that the McCain base is too stupid to understand the Rezko scandal or tie Obama to him. Wow.

    • Patrick Keegan

      So you’re telling him to use smaller words, and then accused him of calling McCain’s base stupid?

      *boggle*

    • Jonathan Berke

      I don’t think they are too stupid, just that the message itself is too convoluted and speculative to actually stick in any meaningful way. Again, half the power of the gaffe lies in its simplicity. It provides an easy way to understand why McCain’s policy proposals will be worse for most American’s than Obama’s (I refer you to the data in the post). The Rezko affair really doesn’t suggest anything at all about Obama’s policy proposals, or draw attention to the fact that under Obama’s proposal, 80 percent of Americans will get a significantly larger tax break than they would under McCain. (Again, I refer you to the data in the post).

      As for my verbiage, I’ll try to be less “pointy-headed” in the future. I must admit though, arugola is fantastic and MetRx bars are a great way of getting protein between meals.

  • Mark

    These comments must be jokes … from jingoist to party-line apologist Cordeiro, I didn’t expect much. But please, please, at least discuss the point of the post: McCain’s camp has run into a small fence of hypocritical irony: in accusing his opponent of something, light has been shed on the fact that he is in fact that thing (an elitist), and a logical bridge to understanding the disconnect in McCain’s tax and economic policies, particularly as pertains to the working class, is evinced.

    Hilary has already drudged up every one of these Obama issues before. Americans who didn’t come into this election with their ballot already cast have moved past Wright, etc. Alaina’s trailer park notwithstanding, most voters are sick of hearing about that stuff. That’s the point.

    I mean, what’s next? Cordeiro writing a post defending McCain cheating on his crippled wife?

  • Alaina

    I agree with Cordeiro and, in addition to what he said, the Wright issue is by no means peripheral.

    I absolutely take issue with ANYONE, much less an aspiring President, that will sit and listen to someone, who was standing on a pulpit nonetheless, spew hatred about the country he supposedly loves for 20 years. It’s absolutely ridiculous and downright insulting.

    If nothing else, the President of any country should be a Patriot and love his country. Someone who would listen to that for so long does not love his country. And, as President, if you don’t love your country, then why are you President and what’s your price?

    To me, it would be like listening to someone praise the people who killed my family. I don’t know anyone who died on 9/11 and I don’t have family in the military (at least not within the last 30 years), but I’m proud of this country and there’s nothing that ticks me off more than to hear someone talk about this country like Wright and Pflagler do. And I can’t possibly understand how anyone can defend them and not think that it’s a major character issue with Obama.

  • http://yesletstalkaboutthis.wordpress.com Jonathan

    It took you two paragraphs to explain something that’s essentially speculative and doesn’t really fit the broader narrative McCain has constructed about Obama. I fail to see how that’s easier to understand than “I don’t know how many houses…”

    Moreover, McCain has his fair share of not-so-easily explained scandals that have yet to be really opened up (Keating Five, Indian Affairs Committee, etc.)

  • Cordeiro

    The Rezko issue is not easy to understand, nor are its implications so direct.

    I’m going to have to take issue with that casual dismissal. The Rezko issue is actually very simple to understand. Obama found a house that was outside his budget. Instead of finding something more affordable, he went and hit up his crony (Rezko) to make up the difference.

    Rezko was more than happy to pony up the extra cash and was rewarded with $14 million in taxpayer money. Now he’s sitting in a Chicago jail waiting for the bus to come and take him to the Big House.

    Simple.

    • Patrick Keegan

      Actually, not so simple.

      The $14 million you called a “reward” was for the development of a low-income housing development, which Obama did write letters of support for.

      Eight years before he bought the house in question.

      Facts are funny things, aren’t they?

      • Troy La Mana

        So he held onto that chit until he wanted to call it in.