While I may think my dear friend DJ Tablesauce comes off as slightly bitter that Obama has chosen to take advantage of his “gift” for fundraising (obviously not a real gift; as DJ pointed out he is reaping the benefits of an extremely emotional group of supporters), he makes an excellent point about the need for a real policy debate. The RATIONAL voters that are desperate for change want that change in the form of substance. They’re sick of bickering and partisan rhetoric. McCain could capitalize on this particular desire for change by touting his long list of policy successes and being concrete and concise about his plans for the future. His “green screen” speech was excellent, although sadly overshadowed by the backdrop, and he’ll do well to keep in that vein. While neither of these candidates has the management (read: gubernatorial) experience voters tend to like in their candidates, McCain has the edge in talking about government reform. He’s the only Republican candidate who had and should take advantage of the ability to bring fiscal conservatism back to column red.
Republicans and Democrats in Harmony! Senators and Representatives holding hands and skipping through a meadow! These mortal enemies have come together against a common foe: dead bodies in federal buildings. They also agree on the need to keep drug users out of federal daycare centers! Who knew it would be so easy to foster accord on the Hill.
A House subcommittee held a hearing today to express their horror at a GAO report which showed that gross incompetence and mismanagement at the Federal Protective Service was leaving high-security federal buildings vulnerable to terrorist attack. A Senate subcommittee will hold a nearly identical hearing tomorrow.
They have a point. Given that elements of the two most devastating terrorist attacks on U.S. soil — Sept. 11 and the Oklahoma City bombing — were aimed at federal buildings, this isn’t an abstract risk, it’s a reality. If you can’t make security at federal buildings a funding priority, posturing on “national security” is a just that … posturing.