Liberated
“Republican presidential candidate John McCain now enjoys a healthy 88-7 percent lead over Barack Obama among Republicans” in a survey released Wednesday by the Pew Center for the People and the Press, Steve Kornacki writes in the New York Observer.
“Notably, even with Republicans lining up squarely behind McCain, the Pew numbers do not indicate a corresponding uptick in the enthusiasm of Republican voters for McCain. In other words, Republicans indicated that they are almost all ready to vote for McCain but only while holding their noses,” Mr. Kornacki said.
“This is both understandable and significant. It’s understandable because, as I wrote in an earlier column, intense personal animosity toward Obama and the voters he is seen as representing has blossomed on the right. … That they still aren’t very fond of McCain really doesn’t matter; it’s more than enough (for them) that he isn’t Obama.
“This is significant for McCain because it offers him a level of freedom from the GOP base that it was long ago assumed he’d never enjoy. …
“Specifically, this could factor into McCain’s running-mate decision. Conventional wisdom holds that he cannot select Joe Lieberman (who, if he didn’t have to worry about politics, would probably be McCain’s top choice for V.P.) because of Lieberman’s liberal views on abortion, gay rights, the environment and a host of other issues on which he agrees (and votes in the Senate) with most Democrats.
“But if the right already sees through McCain and is prepared to vote for him anyway, would Lieberman really be a deal breaker? Especially when the right saw how furious his selection would make the left — and when Lieberman began relentlessly shredding Obama with harsh, Zell Miller-ish rhetoric? (If you think Lieberman has been hard on Obama so far, you haven’t seen anything yet.) McCain may well have the latitude he’d need to offer Lieberman a slot on his ticket — a move that would radically change the dynamics of the race, given the appeal a bipartisan ticket would have to independent voters.”
Point-counterpoint
Democratic presidential candidate Sen. Barack Obama, in a speech earlier this month in Titusville, Fla., complained that Exxon Mobil Corp. makes too much money and should be forced to give some of that profit to the government.
“The other day we learned that Exxon Mobil made nearly $12 billion last quarter,” Mr. Obama said. “To put it another way, they made $1,500 every second. That’s more than $300,000 in the time it takes you to fill up a tank of gas. And Senator McCain actually wants to give oil companies like Exxon another $4 billion in tax cuts.
“Well, I don’t think we should be giving tax breaks to oil companies that are doing better than ever at a time when you’re struggling more than ever. It’s time to use some of their record profits to help you pay record prices by putting a $1,000 emergency energy rebate in the pockets of working families.”
Exxon Mobil Chief Executive Officer and Chairman Rex Tillerson, in an interview this week with ABC’s Charles Gibson, responded to critics such as Mr. Obama, saying that the company’s earnings reflected the magnitude of its business operation.
“I saw someone characterize our profits the other day in terms of $1,400 in profit per second. Well, they also need to understand we paid $4,000 a second in taxes, and we spent $15,000 a second in cost,” Mr. Tillerson said. “We spend $1 billion a day just running our business. So this is a business where large numbers are just characteristic of it.”
Good news
Sam Bosch of Portland, Ore., president of Peregrin Financial, sent a letter to the Wall Street Journal in which he offered a humorous take on complaints that the oil companies make too much money.
“After considering the rants of Sens. Barack Obama and Dick Durbin and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi about the $11.7 billion quarterly profits of Exxon,” Mr. Bosch said, “I wonder if they are now saying after General Motors’ report of a $15 billion loss: ’That’s more like it!’”
Abortion politics
“The Democratic Party is planning a convention designed to soften the edges on the party’s support for abortion rights, with a revamped platform and a speaking lineup that reinforces efforts to broaden Democrats’ appeal on the hot-button issue,” ABC’s Rick Klein and Teddy Davis write at abcnews.go.com.
“In a statement fraught with symbolism for those on both sides of the abortion debate, Sen. Bob Casey Jr., D-Pa., an abortion-rights opponent, will be given a prime speaking slot at the Democratic National Convention in Denver later this month,” the reporters said.
“Casey’s father, the late Pennsylvania Gov. Robert Casey, a Democrat who also held strong anti-abortion views, was denied a speaking role at the party’s 1992 convention — a perceived snub that has long been a flashpoint in the party’s wrangling over how to handle the abortion-rights debate on the national stage.
“In addition, Democrats have adopted a platform that builds on the party’s traditional language about preserving Roe v. Wade with pledges to support women who decide against having abortions.”
Open fire
The Democratic National Committee apparently believes the conventional wisdom that Mitt Romney is the front-runner to become John McCain’s running mate, because it is working overtime to discredit the former Massachusetts governor.
Rep. Barney Frank, Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Financial Services Committee, Dave Woodward, Oakland County commissioner from Michigan, and John E. Walsh, chairman of the Massachusetts Democratic Party, held a conference call Thursday to discuss the launch of the Romney section of the DNC’s Web site, www.TheNextCheney.com.
“I have never seen anyone so completely without any commitment to any particular principle and so willing to say whatever he thinks will help him win the next election,” Mr. Frank said.
“I think he’s one of these people who assumes that politics is so completely without any scruples that you can get away with almost anything. … On the environment, on matters of abortion, on gay rights, on virtually everything that I can think of, this man has zigzagged extraordinarily.”
• Greg Pierce can be reached at 202/636-3285 or gpierce@washingtontimes.com.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.