McCain needs to oppose the bailout

Reading through the NYT today, it became clear to me that John McCain needs to oppose this huge bailout.  

First of all is the front page story, "2 Candidates Back Bailout, With Caveats."  It's a misleading title.  Read the story, and it says McCain could back the bailout.  It never says he does.  So he's leaving his options open.  The theme of the article as far as McCain is concerned (based on a phone interview with him) is that he's trying to appear bipartisan.  He's doing that in other ways--promising to make the WH less political, saying he'd appoint Andrew Cuomo to be SEC chair.

Yet McCain is also sounding more populist.  He has to.  The convention featured the rollout of McCain's message: "Change you can trust."  A little change, not too much, not "Change you can believe in."  It's a brilliant strategy.  If your opponent has a popular message, you need to steal it, or lose.  McCain wants to win with this strategy.

The strategy requires that he oppose the bailout.  I base this on my conviction that McCain needs to make bold gambles to win.  He can't coast into the White House.  Only by making bold gambles will he put Obama on his heels, outside his comfort zone.  If Obama makes this a race on personality and telegenicity, which he did with Hillary by blurring any distinction between their positions, and is trying to do with McCain, he'll win.  McCain can't let that happen.  He needs bold moves.  Palin was a bold move, and it seems to be working out so far.  But that's not enough, as I've argued.

William Kristol's column today in the NYT clinched it for me.  Here you have a neocon agreeing with Paul Krugman across the page.  There are a lot of reasons why a massive bailout is a bad idea.  The reason why it might be a good idea is simply that: "It might work."  But what if it doesn't?  McCain could draw out the consequences of that.  He could show he's a maverick by opposing the Bush administration.  He might be able to appeal to some independent voters who are dissatisfied with a bailout as a solution.  He can appeal to small-government conservatives who think massively expanding the size of government is a bad idea.  And perhaps most of all, he can appeal to ordinary people with populist rhetoric that incenses the Wall Street Journal editorial board.  But that's exactly the right crowd to incense.

Making this move might shift the focus off of McCain's ties to the vested interests he would otherwise be seen to be tied to.  A damning article on his advisor's ties to Fannie and Freddie is on page 18 of the NYT.  Take the attention off this, take the initiative, and put Obama on his heels by opposing the bailout--that's what McCain needs to do.  What would Obama's response be?  I think it would put him in a quandary.  Supporting Bush when even McCain isn't?  That would get Obama clobbered, I think.  Yet Obama would clearly like to play things cautiously and bipartisanly, and rely on his own charm and eloquence rather than policy differences to carry the day.  He'd have to oppose the Democratic Congress, if the latter decides to pass the thing.

Of course, what's inhibiting McCain from doing this really is his total lack of understanding of what's happening.  He doesn't have the vocabulary and knowledge to argue the case effectively, and that's a prerequisite.  

Yet one could argue that Palin doesn't have the vocabulary and knowledge to take on Biden in a debate, and yet McCain picked her anyway.  The presidential race is not for the faint of heart.  I say, go in there and get your hands dirty arguing for the common man.  If you slip up, you'll be forgiven more readily than if you were arguing for the bailout of the rich--that's the same way with Palin, as she'll be forgiven more readily for her faults because she's an "ordinary person."