Why McCain's "Fundamentals of the Economy Are Strong" Remark Was in Line with His Strategy

[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]

John McCain is not as dumb as those of us on the left want to believe. So don't think his comment yesterday that "the fundamentals of the economy are strong" was a gaffe. I don't believe it was. I think he knew exactly what he was saying.

McCain has campaigned using unbelievably transparent lies, making sleazy and wacky assertions that nobody in their right mind would believe. (A list of criticisms of McCain's ads can be found here, and an Obama commercial also did a good job of showing how low McCain has stooped in his attacks.) And yet the strategy gave McCain a bump in the polls. He then picked an unaccomplished, inexperienced, scandal-dominated, less-than-exceptionally-intelligent candidate to be his running mate, even drawing fire from Republican pundits, and it gave him an even bigger bump in the polls.

And now, on the day that Lehman Brothers filed for bankruptcy protection, Merrill Lynch was acquired by Bank of America, and AIG moved to restructure itself, McCain told an audience that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong." (And Barack Obama responded with a well-done television ad that nails McCain for his apparently tone-deaf statement.)

Yes, I understand that, factually, McCain was wrong. The "fundamentals of the economy" are generally accepted to refer to figures like growth, inflation and unemployment, none of which are especially encouraging right now. Growth has been glacial, unemployment is at its highest rate in five years, and the actual buying power of middle-class families has dropped since Bush took office.

No, as much as McCain's claim was incorrect, I believe that like the lie-filled attacks on Obama and the choice of Sarah Palin, McCain's affirmation that things are rosy with the nation's finances was a move that, on the surface, looks ludicrous, but, in practice, helps him accomplish his goal of getting elected to the presidency.

How can that be? Easy. It talks directly, in not-too-subtle terms, to the needs of two audiences he has to mollify. First, it tells financial conservatives that he's their guy. That despite any rhetoric he may have to espouse in the coming weeks, in the end, he will do nothing to rein in the complete freedom and absence of regulation that the financial industry has enjoyed under the administration of George W. Bush. After all, Obama is pointing to the banking crisis as a big problem that will require the government to reinstitute some regulation, the last thing the financial institutions want. By indicating that the current troubles on Wall Street are not such a big deal (since, as McCain is claiming, the "fundamentals of our economy are strong"), he is telling the powers-that-be in the financial industry to relax with the knowledge that he has no intention of changing the (lack of) rules they are currently enjoying.

Second, McCain's statement on the economy was meant to win over undecided voters. As I discussed in my article last week on the behavior of the American electorate, one of the reasons that undecided voters are moving to McCain rather than Obama is because of a change in the culture that no longer has citizens willing to sacrifice. Obama is out there telling the electorate the truth, making the point that the economy isn't working for most working- and middle-class families, and that the energy situation requires changing habits and a large-scale solution rather than stop-gap fixes.

McCain, on the other hand, is the "Don't Worry, Be Happy" candidate. He's telling U.S. citizens that things are fine, we can drill for our own oil, and we really don't have to make any major changes to our way of doing things. Oh, and we're going to win in Iraq, too! So what if nothing McCain is saying is backed up by the facts or based in reality? He's pitching a feel-good message. It's like he's saying, "Don't listen to that pessimistic, America-hating elitist with the Ivy League education telling you America isn't great. You know America is great. We don't have to change anything. Things are fine. Just go about living your life, and I'll take care of everything. After all, I'm a war hero and I was in a POW camp for five years."

If a voter is willing to plunge his or her head into the sand, ostrich style, and ignore the realities of the failing economy, the energy crisis and global warming, well, then McCain's message is very uplifting.

And that is where his statement on the economy comes in. It gives these undecided voters a chance to buy into McCain's "it's all all right" mantra. "Don't worry about the unemployment, foreclosures and failing banks. The fundamentals are strong. We don't need Obama telling us to sacrifice. That guy is a downer. McCain says the fundamentals are strong and we can keep doing what we want."

As long as the culture of the American electorate is such that it is willing to be swayed by outright lies and smears, and as long as voters take a me-first (ironic, given McCain's completely bogus "country first" slogan), I-don't-want-to-change approach to choosing a candidate, McCain's "gaffes" will only help him attract voters.

Considering the GOP's success in the 2000 and 2004 elections, despite everything that was going in favor of the Democrats in both races, and considering that many of the same folks who ran Bush's campaigns are in place for McCain's current run for the White House, it would be foolish to think that McCain's strategies and statements are as dumb as we would like to think. And the Obama campaign should not assume that swing voters will hold McCain accountable for his actions.

Sure it's remarkably out-of-touch to claim that the "fundamentals of the economy are strong." But if it attracts voters, McCain's statement will have done its job.

“Gavin & Stacey” Wrings British-Tinged Laughs From a Simple Premise

[NOTE: The following article will also appear as my regular television column for WILDsound.]

While a few networks have debuted a handful of their new shows already, we are in a moment of calm before the storm. In the next few weeks, a cavalcade of new and returning programs will hit the air. Naturally, the launch of the new season has commanded nearly all of the television-related attention.

Which is why I don’t understand why BBC America waited until late August to roll out the British sitcom “Gavin & Stacey” (Tuesdays at 8:40 - 9:20 p.m. Eastern). This cute, off-beat comedy, which first aired in 2007 on the BBC in the U.K., is worth watching, and would have been an ideal summer trifle had it arrived in June or July. I fear it will get lost with all eyes turned to the new season.

My introduction to “Gavin & Stacey” actually goes back to February, when, while on a Virgin flight to London, I watched two episodes on the airline’s personal video center. What I saw turned out to be the final installments in the six-episode first season, so I was especially excited to be able to catch the first four shows when BBC America announced it had picked up the program.

The fact that “Gavin & Stacey” is a British sitcom should not lead you to believe that it has much (anything?) in common with the Ricky Gervais version of “The Office.” “Gavin & Stacey” doesn’t aim nearly that high, mixing simple, silly, classic (or tired, depending how you look at it) sitcom premises, but giving them a smart, distinctly British spin. And while it is a single-camera, location-based production, it maintains the domestic, digital video, slightly generic feel of many British programs.

The plot is pretty simple: As the debut episode opens, Gavin (Mathew Horne), a twentysomething desk jockey at a computer firm in Essex, England, has arranged to meet Stacey (Joanna Page), also in her 20s, an office worker in Barry, Wales, for a date in London. Gavin and Stacey have been talking on the phone for some time (their companies do business with each other), and they have gotten along so well, they are ready to try the next step.

To protect themselves, each brings along a best friend. In Gavin’s case that is Smithy (James Corden), a portly, baby-faced, beer-guzzling, emotionally regressive loudmouth with a high-school-aged girlfriend we never see. Smithy is worried about Gavin meeting up with Stacey, almost as nervous as he is that her friend will be unattractive. As Gavin and Stacey’s relationship progresses, Smithy is less and less happy, seeing Stacey as an interloper to his man-bond with Gavin.

Stacey’s second is Nessa (Ruth Jones), a portly, tattooed, chain-smoking, goth/punk chick with an exceptionally shady past, one that is revealed in dribs and drabs over the course of the series. For example, we learn that Nessa lost a husband to a firing squad in an unnamed country due to drug smuggling. Even more entertaining is her story about her affair with the guy who runs Harrods (she has no idea she is talking about Egyptian millionaire Mohammed Al-Fayed), who took her to football games (Al-Fayed owns the soccer team Fulham FC) and then passed her off to his son, who soon after stopped calling her (Al-Fayed’s son, Dodi, was killed in the car accident that also claimed the life of Princess Diana). That kind of joke demonstrates the irreverent tone of the comedy, something you don’t see as much of in American television.

Of course, Smithy and Nessa hook up on the date, but the kinky nature of their coupling and their banter before and after (which ranges from indifferent to hostile, but never to affectionate) are far bawdier than anything you would find on the American networks. And the dynamic between Smithy and Nessa, Smithy and Gavin, and Nessa and Stacey reminded me of a less toxic version of the quadrangle of relationships in the Rob Lowe/Demi Moore film “About Last Night.”

Gavin and Stacey, who both still live at home, have wacky families that, while very British, follow in the American TV tradition of wacky relatives. Gavin’s businessman father, Mick (Larry Lamb), has the patience of a saint (usually, anyway) with Gavin’s mother, Pam (Alison Steadman), a bleach blonde, trophy-wife-gone-to-seed who can be histrionic and discombobulated, especially when she’s been drinking (this being a British show, everyone drinks, and a lot).

Stacey’s Welsh clan includes her simple mother Gwen (Melanie Walters), who is still mourning the loss of her husband, and the stand-in man of the house (although he lives across the street), Stacey’s Uncle Bryn (Rob Brydon), a good-hearted Cliff Clavin with a Welsh accent, who intervenes in his relatives’ lives way more than he should (often making things worse), but does so completely to protect them, which he views as his life’s work (and the wish of his beloved dead brother). Brydon steals virtually every scene he’s in, equally adept at delivering pitch-perfectly timed punch lines and broad physical comedy. Brydon also shows emotional depth at key moments, like in a speech to get the two families to stop fighting. His words manage to be both heartfelt and funny.

But, of course, in a show called “Gavin & Stacey,” everything rests on the shoulders of the two love birds of the title. And they definitely make it work. Page is adorable as Stacey, who is infused with a mixture of youthful naiveté and the world weariness of someone who has had to overcome some major life troubles. Her combination of joy and vulnerability, and her genuine affection for the people in her life, make her an exceptionally likable lead. I would fully understand it if some viewers with an aversion to on-screen syrup found her to be annoyingly sweet. But the character and the performance work for me.

And Horne’s Gavin is every bit what you would expect from a son whose mother routinely refers to him as her “little prince.” He has excellent manners and is an all-around good guy, but he also has a mischievous streak born of someone who has been able to charm himself out of trouble in the past. Like when he’s quick to take "sickies” (sick days) so he and Stacey can spend time together. Gavin’s tight relationship with the socially inept Smithy is a bit of a stretch, but as they’ve known each other for so long, you can just chalk it up to loyalty.

In the end, these are two characters you root for, even if their courtship rushes forward in a manner that strains credibility.

Interestingly, the show’s creators and writers are the performers who play Smithy and Nessa, Corden and Jones. The two prove adept at setting up funny situations; penning smart, sharp lines; and creating characters who are likable, relatable, but also flawed. Again, the plots can be paper thin (Stacey is aghast when she wakes up her first morning at Gavin’s house with a pimple, and Stacey thinks Gavin is breaking up with her when he can’t talk freely with his boss next to him, for example), but the comedy and the characters pull the show through.

The six episodes of the first season run from the couple’s first date in the debut to a wedding in the finale, with a sea of road bumps in between. Should Stacey tell Gavin that this is her sixth engagement? And how will Gavin react when he finally learns of her dicey history with grooms-to-be? Will the families, who differ in nationality and economic station, be able to get along? And how will the friends handle this new relationship, and the new roles it creates for them?

These are all questions that you will want to see answered, and they will be addressed with a healthy dose of offbeat comedy. Some of the jokes hit the mark, while others go horribly awry. But in the end, following Gavin and Stacey is a journey worth taking.

Hopefully BBC America will pick up the second season (which has already aired in the U.K.). And if it does, hopefully the programmers will slide the show into the less competitive summer months next year, far away from the hustle of September and October. Summer would be the perfect season to spend some time with Gavin & Stacey, filling the down time until your favorite shows return.

Close Presidential Race? Don't Blame the Media, Blame the Voters

[This article also appears on Huffingtonpost.com. You can access it from my author page here.]

In civil tort law, it's not enough for a defendant to have done something wrong. The wrongful act has to be the "proximate cause" of a plaintiff's injuries. So, for example, if you leave an open bear trap in front of your house (happens all the time, I know), you clearly have done something negligent. But that doesn't mean that someone who trips and falls across the street can sue you for negligence, since you were not the proximate cause of the person's injuries.

I flashed back to my first year of law school and the concept of proximate cause when I read Adam McKay's great Huffingtonpost.com article yesterday. In a nutshell, Adam makes the argument that in the same way that the casinos always win at blackjack because the odds are stacked in their favor at 51 percent to 49 percent, the Republicans win presidential elections because they, too, have a 51-49 advantage, thanks to the lack of meaningful mainstream media to vet the lies told by the GOP.

While I agree with virtually everything Adam wrote regarding the sorry state of the U.S. press, I disagree with his conclusion that it is the media that gives the Republicans an odds advantage. Put another way, I'd argue that the media is the homeowner with the bear trap, in that they are clearly not doing their jobs, but they are not the proximate cause of this particular injury (GOP presidential wins with seemingly less qualified candidates).

So if it's not the media that are to blame, who do I point the finger at as being the proximate cause? Easy. The voters themselves.

I agree with the premise that the media, which is controlled by a handful of major corporations, is far more interested in making money and consolidating power than fulfilling its responsibility to inform the electorate. Where I break from the liberal orthodoxy on this issue is on the effect of the media's failings. The argument often goes that, "If only the people had the information to make an informed choice, they would choose the Democrat, but because those bastards in the mainstream media won't do their jobs, the voters don't have the tools to make the correct choice, and thus vote differently than they would if they had the benefit of a functioning media to vet the GOP lies."

You could make a strong argument that this was true in 1988 (the shameful Willie Horton ad and Michael Dukakis's ill-fated ride in a tank), and maybe -- maybe -- you can make that argument for 2000 and 2004. But in 2008? I think the argument no longer holds water. Voters have (or could have) all the information they need to make a choice this year. They're just making a choice that we on the left would consider a bad one.

Let me take a step back. Republicans have won the presidency since 2000 by combining three constituencies:

- Economic conservatives,
- Religious conservatives, and
- Voters who describe themselves as "moderate," "independent" and/or "undecided."

Even with a perfect media system in place with every piece of information available, you have to believe that the first two categories of voters are going to vote overwhelmingly Republican anyway. Those who narrow-mindedly vote based solely on macroeconomics under the belief that the free market will cure all lean naturally to the GOP (no matter how many studies show that Barack Obama's economic plan means less taxes for most Americans than John McCain's proposal). And religious wackadoodles have been trained to believe that the Republicans are the party of the Lord (even though there are numerous references in the bible to poverty but only one to homosexuality, but that's a completely different article topic for a different day). So Democrats will always have trouble with the religious right.

Really, when we talk about the importance of the media, we're talking about the ability to reach the third category of moderates, independents and undecided voters. Those are the citizens, the argument goes, who would vote for Obama (or would have voted for John Kerry or Al Gore) if they knew all the facts.

Specifically, in 2008, the argument goes: If the media would point out McCain's strictly GOP voting record of the last eight years in the Senate, and how he voted with Bush 90 percent of the time, plus how McCain has claimed not to no much about economics and how his economic policy was crafted by the former senator behind both the subprime mortgage crash and the increase in gas prices, and how he favors the same tax cuts for the rich instituted by Bush; and how he was an early advocate of the war in Iraq and was disastrously wrong about all of his predictions, and how the surge has failed when measured against President Bush's January 10, 2007 address to the American people announcing the reason for the plan (since the Iraqi government has not taken the painful but necessary steps toward self-governance), then these undecided voters would flock to Obama.

The argument follows that if only the media would report that Sarah Palin and other GOP convention speakers lied over and over again, that Palin lobbied hard for the so-called "bridge to nowhere," that she wanted to fire the librarian of Wasilla for not banning a huge list of classic literature from the shelves, that she is in favor of teaching creationism in schools, that she is against abortion even in the case of rape, that she has had no foreign policy experience as the titular head of the Alaska National Guard, that she had connections to Ted Stevens and his activities that led to his indictment, that her husband belongs to a party that advocates for secession and whose leader professed hatred of the U.S. government, and that she is patently unqualified to be president by any objective standard and represents a cynical grab for votes by McCain, then independent and moderate voters would wake up and vote for Obama.

I don't buy it.

The U.S. electorate has already demonstrated that it does understand that there are problems, and it is ready to take action. Even as measured by the right-wing Fox News, Bush currently enjoys an approval rating of only 28 percent. An August 3 CBS News/New York Times poll revealed that 81 percent of Americans believe the country is on the wrong track, and only 14 percent believe we are headed in the right direction. And in November 2006, Americans were angry enough about the war in Iraq to boot the Republicans out of control of both houses of Congress, and that anger continued into 2007 and 2008 as they replaced Republicans with Democrats in three special House elections in traditionally GOP districts in Louisiana, Mississippi and Illinois. And according to RealClearPolitics, a generic Democrat still enjoys a lead over a generic Republican in Congressional elections.

In other words, Americans know they are pissed off, and they have demonstrated the ability to effectuate "change" with their voting power. So if they wanted to do it for the presidency, they could.

With all the media coverage of this campaign (even if it's been lousy), and all of the information available for people on the Internet, there not only is no excuse for not knowing the facts the mainstream media isn't reporting about McCain, Palin and the Republicans, I would argue that most voters do, in fact, get the gist of what's going on. In an August 29 USA Today/Gallup poll, only 39 percent of respondents thought Palin was qualified to be president. Most independent voters know that she was involved in some less-than-nice stuff in Alaska and holds extreme right-wing positions. I even think the electorate has a strong sense that McCain has sided with Bush most of the time and would operate as president much like the current administration does. A USA Today/Gallup poll released yesterday showed that while McCain got a bounce from the GOP convention, 63 percent of respondents were concerned that he would continue Bush's policies if elected (virtually unchanged from 64 percent and 66 percent in earlier polls).

What I'm getting is, voters essentially know what's going on. They just don't care. I believe that "undecided" voters that go to McCain aren't doing so because of any lack of information, they are doing it despite that information. I think there are two explanations for this phenomenon.

The first one is easier and more obvious: race. I do believe that there are people in this country who, for whatever reason, can't bring themselves to pull the lever for an African-American presidential contender. I often go back to Steve Kroft's 60 Minutes interview before the Ohio primary with an undecided voter who was leaning towards Obama, but had concerns because he "heard" Obama was a Muslim who wouldn't salute the flag during the pledge of allegiance. Some voters are open about it, a lot more aren't (maybe even trying to convince themselves that it's not about race). These folks are just looking for an excuse not to vote for Obama, something to justify their "discomfort," claiming it has nothing to do with race.

Nothing the media could do would make Obama a more palatable option for the group of ignorant Americans who won't vote for a black presidential candidate.

The second reason some voters seem not to care about the facts in selecting a candidate is more subtle, but may be more powerful: They don't want to be asked to sacrifice. As a nation, we have become a what's-in-it-for-me, sacrifice-free culture. During World War II, Americans were asked to make all kinds of sacrifices, including rationing, and they did so to support the war effort. Sixty years later, it would be hard to imagine any leader having the guts to make the same requests of the American people, since they would correctly fear being turned out of office in the next election. Any politician who advocated raising taxes, instituting the draft or rationing the use of oil to support the war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan would be roundly smacked down by the voters. The culture has changed.

So it's not surprising that Obama's message is not resonating as well as McCain's with a certain group of undecided voters. Obama is telling Americans, in essence, "Things are bad. We're in a bad war. We're in a bad economy. And our energy policy is killing us. We can fix it, but you will have to make some changes. You have to accept that there may not be a traditional victory in Iraq. And you have to change the way you use energy, or else the country and the planet will be in bad shape." That puts a lot of pressure on Americans to actually have to take responsibility for their actions and their country, something they are no longer ever asked to do. Obama is saying Americans have to sacrifice. That's brave. And it's the right course of action. But it's dangerous when you're looking for votes.

Meanwhile, what is McCain saying? His message is: "We're going to win in Iraq. The economy is basically fine. And if we drill offshore, we can produce our own oil, and you can keep using as much energy as you want ... and it will be cheaper. You don't have to change a thing." Clearly, if you stick to the facts, McCain is lying to Americans. We can't drill ourselves out of our much larger energy crisis, and the offshore drilling won't produce any oil for ten years and will have virtually no effect on gas prices, even in the estimation of Bush's own Energy Information Administration. McCain knows that under Bush's economic policies, the gap between rich and poor has widened to a historically high level, that Americans are in debt like never before, and that the subprime mortgage crisis has weakened the economy. And McCain has been front and center as a supporter of the war in Iraq, one of the costliest and most ill-conceived foreign policy blunders in modern U.S. history.

But it doesn't matter. When faced with a choice between the guy that's telling them that nothing has to change and everything is okay, and the guy who is telling them that everything has to change and nothing is all right, many self-interested voters are opting for the guy telling them that they can keep living their lives as they have been. No facts are going to disrupt this line of thinking. Fixing the incompetence and abdication of the mainstream media would have no effect on these people.

It's important to remember that democracy works, but not always the way you might think. The government reflects the will of the people. If the electorate wants to check out and vote for a fantasy rather than addressing the real problems facing the country, then that country's citizens will get exactly what they deserve. If they know that the last eight years have not gone well, and then they return to office the people who got us into this mess in the first place, they deserve to live in four more years of the same mess. If Americans want to delude themselves to believe the lies and distortions pumped out by the GOP attack machine, then they deserve to be governed by the Republicans. It's really that simple.

The media might be derelict in their duties, but they are not the cause of the current tight race for the presidency. And for once, we can't blame the candidate, since Obama has done an immeasurably better job so far than Kerry did in 2004 or Gore did in 2000. No, this time, the blame has to go to the voters themselves. One consolation: No matter who wins in November, Americans will get exactly what we deserve.