What a Difference 4 Years Make

During the 2012 Presidential Campaign, Obama ripped into Romney's views on foreign policy.  Here's the clip.  Obama mocks Romney for identifying Russia as the number one geopolitical rival.  He also gives him grief for making a nuclear treaty with Russia.  To read the news since the 2016 election, it looks like Romney was a seer!  He then attacks Romney for wanting more troops in Iraq.  As it turned out, ISIS exploded on the scene in 2014 and there was virtually no US presence to oppose it and the Iraqi army collapsed.  Gee, Romney is an oracle!  Then he hammers Romney for dithering on Afghanistan, apparently not having a mirror on hand to examine his own record on that account. 

Asked two years later - in light of troubles in Ukraine and Syria - if Romney was right on Russia being our primary geopolitical foe, Obama dodged a direct response to the question and offered vague analysis instead.

Though I'm certainly no Romney fan, he demonstrably had the clearer view on foreign affairs in general and Russia in particular.  Even Democrats would have a hard time justifying Obama's 2012 statements in light of current events.  If Russia has had as much influence as many Democrats are now saying, those above clips will eventually be cited like Neville Chamberlain's 'peace for our time' proclamation.  According to some accounts, Obama sat on his hands while Russian operatives rigged the election for Trump.  Thus, the effort to delegitimize Trump's election must simultaneously paint Obama as hopelessly clueless and incompetent with regard to Russia.

Secretary of State

Word is that former CIA Director and commander of the Surge in Iraq, General David Petraeus, is a finalist for Secretary of State.  I think that would be unwise.  He has already shown bad judgment in sharing classified data with his mistress/biographer.  Much like Hillary Clinton, he was above the law, just not as far above it as she was.  Lower ranking officers who pulled that crap would have suffered more than an ignominious resignation.  Furthermore, despite years spent fighting 'Islamic terrorism,' he has learned nothing of Islam.  During the controversy over a Florida pastor burning Korans, Petraeus weighed with an opinion.  His opinion was that the pastor should not exercise his 1st Amendment right to free speech because some Afghanis and Iraqis might be offended.  Between the bad judgment with his mistress and the failure to see Islam for what it is, Petraeus disqualifies himself.  The first error should deny him a security clearance for life and the second makes him unsuitable to negotiate a long term peace in the Middle East.

 

The other finalist is Mitt Romney.  Mitt was one of the leading NeverTrumpers and gave a scathing speech about Trump.  That Trump would consider Romney after this speaks highly of Trump.  When looking at Romney's failed 2012 presidential run, it is obvious that he saw the diplomatic landscape far more clearly than did Obama.  He declared that Russia was a primary geopolitical foe and the last four years has demonstrated that beyond any doubt.  Obama's retort that the 80s want their foreign policy back does not play as well today.  Where Romney was squishy on domestic policy - thus his need for Ryan on the ticket - his planned foreign policy would have been more muscular and in the standard Republican mold.  Also, his business background is more suited to cutting deals (e.g. win-win) than Petraeus' military background that is more naturally confrontational (we win, you lose).

 

Given only these two, I would pick Romney.  Trump's base is not keen on him because of Romney's harsh attacks during the campaign.  That same base is better disposed toward Petraeus.

 

Trump is not going to be a normal president.  He has already done things that a no previous president-elect has done.  He is famous for saying "You're fired!" and might very well replace his cabinet on a more frequent basis than any other president.  We have had politicians and military men as presidents but never a businessman.  Will he settle into a more standard presidency or will it continue to be weird like the campaign?

Russian Reset in Ruins

When Hillary Clinton became Secretary of State, she made a big show of resetting our relationship with Russia.  The implication was that Bush had done a bad job and the Obama Administration would use 'smart diplomacy' to resolve issues.  By the end of her tenure, Republican Presidential Nominee Mitt Romney was declaring Russia to be our primary geopolitical foe.  Obama mocked him, saying the 1980s called and wanted their foreign policy back.  And then Russia invaded Ukraine.  And annexed Crimea.  And sold anti-aircraft missiles to Iran.  And station troops and planes in Syria.  And have repeatedly offered Cold War style provocations.  Now a flotilla of Russian warships is brazenly traipsing through the English Channel.  This looks a lot like the Cold War.

 

This course was set by Hillary and Obama.  John Kerry has done little more than keep the seat warm since Hillary left.  Who hires a person whose structures collapse to takeover as the new architect?  It looks very much like America probably will.

 

The next four years are going to be very difficult.

The Nominee Strikes Back

The press jumped on Trump's claim that he raised $6 million for veterans in his rally back in January.  Trump replied by jumping on the press.  He held a press conference in which he hammered the media, calling them sleazy and dishonest.  It is a moment like this when I really like Trump.  For decades, I have seen the media hound Republicans about things that they ignore in Democrats.  Why aren't these same reporters quizzing Hillary about the Clinton Foundation?  The mainstream media is composed almost exclusively of Democrats.  Republican voters know this and have been frustrated by how Republican candidates just accepted it without comment.  When speaking to George Stephanopolous, Trump reminded the viewer that Stephanopolous was a Clinton operative.  Trump must also have taken note of the huge boost that Newt Gingrich received in the 2012 campaign when he blasted the media for 'gotcha' questions.  The Republican base knows that the media is just as much the enemy as the Democrats are.  The base is so starved for a Republican who fights that it has nominated a marginal Republican to get that long-missing trait.  Romney made a passable impression of a doormat, especially when he let Candy Crowley derail him in the third debate.  Though there are many other Republicans I would prefer to have as president, I really appreciate Donald Trump as a nominee who won't just sit back and let the media walk on him.  Unlike Romney, he strikes back.  As Lincoln said when asked to remove Grant from command: "I can't spare this man; he fights."

Don't Listen to Losers

Stop attacking the nominee of your party, loser!  It is a done deal.  Are you stupid?  This is the guy.  Attacking him prior to his nailing down the nomination is fine but once he has it, you need to line up behind the nominee.  You make the best with what you have but you don't torpedo your party's nominee?

Where was Mitt Romney when Obama refused to release (and still hasn't) his college transcripts?  What 'bombshells' were hidden there that you and the rest of the Republican Party just ignored?  How about when Bill Clinton refused to release his medical records?  How many times was he treated for venereal diseases was not going to reflect well on his campaign.  Better to refuse to release it.  And he never did.  And Romney complaining about tax returns?  Holy crap!  You are doing to Trump what Harry Reid did to you in 2012.  It was wrong when Reid did it and it is wrong that you do it.  How about you let Hillary and her surrogates attack Trump - as they should - and you attack Hillary?  Which party do you want to win in November?

 

If Romney had gone after Obama as strenuously as he is now going after Trump, maybe he wouldn't have lost in 2012 and the Republican base wouldn't be so righteously indignant at a bunch of spineless Republicans in Washington that they nominated Trump!  This is your fault!  Own it!  Figure out how to make the best of it but stop trying to make Hillary president.

 

Loser!

 

- end of rant -

Media is saving Bombshells for the General Election?

In this article, Ted Cruz suggests that the media has numerous bombshell stories to drop on Trump should he be the nominee.  That sounds like a reasonable suggestion.  But is it?  If there are bombshells out there, why hasn't every Republican opposition research team dug it up and used it?  Or what about the conservative media that is hugely opposed to Trump?  Ben Shapiro blasted Trump pretty hard in a recent video which seems to have done nothing.  Romney - the man who lost the most winnable election against a Democratic incumbent since Reagan beat Carter - launched a massive attack and Trump replied with little more than a shrug.  After all, Romney's a loser.  Trump is an admitted adulterer, has acknowledged bankruptcies, admitted influencing government officials because that is how the game is played, and more.  He is still in the lead.  I'm doubtful there are worse failings to be uncovered.  Sure, the media will press hard on all these issues but Trump isn't the typical Republican who will wilt.  Also, Hillary has an equally huge number of bombshells, many of them relating to her performance as a public servant.  Unlike Romney vs. Obama, where Romney didn't hammer on Obama's record of failure, I'm pretty sure Trump is going to tear into Hillary in exactly the way Cruz, Rubio, Kasich, JEB, or any other Republican wouldn't.  Trump fights and he doesn't give a crap what the media thinks.  Yes, his attacks are often unfair and inaccurate; Cruz of all people should know that.  However, they stick.  I've talked to people who distrust Cruz because of what Trump said about him.  Look what happened to JEB after Trump called him 'low energy.'  I don't begrudge Ted his effort to use potential media bombshells to turn the electorate toward him but I also don't think Trump is an easy mark for Hillary.  This is an anti-establishment year and Hillary is the most establishment candidate still in the race.

Romney Returns

I will be the first to say that I would far prefer to have had Mitt Romney as president for the last two years than Barack Obama.  That said, he had his shot.  He had the best shot of any challenger of a sitting president in more than 30 years.  With a disastrous economy, collapsing foreign policy, and high and persistent unemployment, Romney lost.  Millions of Republicans sat at home rather than go to the polls and vote Romney.  Many of them may be regretting that decision in light of the further collapse of foreign policy (e.g. Ukraine, Iraq, Israel-Palestine) and the still floundering economy but that is not a reason to vote for Romney in 2016.

 

While ads savaged Romney for the death by cancer of the wife of a man who had several years earlier lost his job and health insurance when Bain Capital closed his factory, Mitt ran no such attack ads against President Obama.  There were no ads that the president left Americans to die in Benghazi.  There were no ads about Fast and Furious.  There weren't even ads about the president's numerous golf outings (playing golf was practically a war crime during the Bush Presidency).  McCain ran the same campaign four years earlier and Romney didn't learn from that.  Will he play hardball in 2016?  I doubt it.

 

If he can't get votes against someone with an unimpressive four year record, how is he going to get votes against a blank slate?  There is a reason that neither party reruns a loser.

Noise on the TV

It is that time again when the airwaves are crammed with political commercials that more often deceive than inform.

 

One commercial airing for the Obama Campaign is addressing the oft-repeated question that Reagan asked: Are you better off than you were four years ago?  Initially, the campaign dodged the question or even, accidentally, admitted that the country wasn't better off but was headed in the right direction.  The campaign has decided on a strategy.  The economy was bleeding hundreds of thousands of jobs when Obama arrived and now the trend is adding jobs.  It is a clever ad but it is misleading.  The ad implies that the economy would still be losing hundreds of thousands of jobs a month if not for Obama, as if the recession would never have bottomed out.  See, the bleeding stopped so he's a success.  Hardly.  When Obama took office, the unemployment rate was under 8%.  It has been over 8% ever since, which itself is misleading.  Assuming that the same number of people were in the workforce (which they aren't), then the economy hasn't yet recovered.  As to the workforce, if the same number of people were still employed or looking for jobs as were looking in Jan. 2009, the unemployment rate would be over 11%.  People dropping out of the workforce are benefiting the president.  One should note that when an economy begins to truly recover, the unemployment rate ticks up as the discouraged workers reenter the job market.

In another commercial, the Obama Campaign paints Romney as pro-China.  See, a flood of Chinese tires was threatening American jobs so Obama imposed a tariff and Romney was opposed to the tariff.  Anyone who understands trade is opposed to tariffs.  Tariffs make goods more expensive and allow domestic manufactures to be less efficient.  For example, let's suppose that China Widget Company (CWC) can make widgets for $10 and American Widget Company makes them for $15.  AWC needs to become more efficient or be driven out of business.  Yes, that will cost the employees of AWC their jobs but it will benefit the consumers who will save money on widgets.  Less expensive goods make the consumer richer.  However, if we impose a $10 tariff on CWC so that their widgets cost $20, AWC will remain uncompetitive and might even raise its price to $19 a widget.  This makes the consumer poorer.  Romney understands this while Obama does not.

 

In another commercial, Bill Clinton promotes Obama's plan as being superior to the Romney plan, which he claims is the reason for the Great Recession.  Obama's plan has put us $5.4 trillion deeper in debt and has, at best, left the economy no better than when he started.  Too many more successes like this and the country will be bankrupt.

 

Of particular note is that these are all defensive commercials, responding to attacks from the Romney Campaign or its surrogates.  It is generally said that if you are on defense, you're losing.

A New Low in Political Ads

When Mitt Romney closed the plant I lost my healthcare and my family lost their healthcare. A short time after that, my wife became ill. I don't know how long she was sick and I think maybe she didn't say anything because she knew we couldn't afford the insurance.

Joe Soptic

Mr. Soptic goes on to imply that the closing of the steel mill led directly to his wife's death of cancer on account of lacking health insurance.  The ad is tantamount to accusing Romney of murdering Mr. Soptic's wife; unless a genocide accusation materializes, we have hit bottom.  But, as Paul Harvey used to say, here is the rest of the story.

First, Romney left Bain in 1999, 2 years before the steel mill closed and Mr. Soptic lost his job.  Though most people would not hold Romney responsible for what was done after his departure, Democrats see things a little differently; Obama is still blaming Bush for the economy more than 3 years after his departure. 

Second, GST was closed in 2001, two years after Romney had left Bain.  So, Romney had invested in GST in 1994 (GST had requested Bain invest to save the company) and it was a going concern when he left to work on the Salt Lake City Olympics.  So, had Bain not invested, Joe would have been out of a job back in 1994!  He should be thanking Romney for the extra years he got.  Interestingly, the man who was heading Bain at the time GST was closed is an Obama bundler.  How embarrassing.  Luckily, the ad doesn't mention that.

Third, Joe's wife had insurance through her job for an additional 2 years.  Meanwhile, Joe got a job as a janitor which supplied his insurance.  On that basis, one would think Joe might be angry at one of these insurance providers rather than the one from the last job.  What happened to his wife's job in 2003?  Maybe he should direct his rage there.

Finally, Joe's wife died in 2006.  That is 7 years after Romney had left Bain and 5 years after GST had closed but Joe nonetheless implies that his wife's death from lung cancer is Romney's fault!  So, apparently, Mr. Soptic thinks that Romney owed him a job and healthcare for life and failure to provide that resulted in his wife's death.  Shame on you, Mr. Romney!

It should be noted that the ad was produced by a SuperPAC, not the Obama campaign.  However, when pressed on the appropriateness of the ad, Obama campaign spokesmen have ducked, dodged, and weaved to avoid denouncing the ad.  In other words, we approve this message but don't want to admit that we approve this message.

So, to recap the campaign so far: the Obama campaign and its supporters have called Romney a bully, a wimp, a gaffe-prone buffoon, a vulture capitalist, a tax cheat, a felon, Romney-hood (wants to steal from the poor and give to the rich), and now a murderer.  By contrast, the Romney campaign and its supporters have viciously attacked Obama with claims that the economy could be doing better, making ads that quote the President ("You didn't build that"), and accuse the President of being a nice guy who is out of his depth on economic issues.  Oh, the humanity!  What cruel attacks while Obama is trying to be civil.

Obama's Columbia Scandal

William Allyn Root, the Libertarian VP candidate from 2008 (I voted for him), coincidentally graduated Columbia University the same year as President Obama.  Despite the fact that they both had the same major, Root has no recollection of Obama.  With a typical student, that would hardly seem surprising but Obama managed to get into Harvard afterwards, so one expects him to be a stand out student.  The Wall Street Journal contacted 400 other graduates from 1983 and none of them remembered Barack Obama (his name was Barry Soetoro at the time).  That's peculiar.

Mr. Root has a theory: Obama got into Columbia as a foreign exchange student.  He had lived in Indonesia from 1966 to 1971.  His mother went back to Indonesia in 1975 and remained there while Barack lived with his grandparents in Hawaii before going to Occidental in 1979.  How did a self-confessed member of the Choom Gang (i.e. pot smokers) who spent part of his high school years in a haze (according to his autobiography) manage to get into a prestigious private school?  It wasn't family wealth.  Then he transferred to Columbia in 1981 where we are led to believe that he excelled though none of the alumni remember him.  Root posits that all this makes perfect sense if Obama had been accepted as an exchange student.  The requirements would be lower, such students often missed classes, and there could even be a competition among Ivy League colleges to recruit him.  Add to this that his publisher in the early 90s listed his birthplace as Kenya:

http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/2012/05/publishers-booklet-obama-born-in-kenya/.

Still, this is just a theory supported by some deductive reasoning based on Obama's refusal to release his college transcripts. That's not unusual, right?  Let's look at recent candidates.  George W. Bush, John Kerry, and Al Gore all released their college transcripts, which is how we know Bush and Kerry got equivalent grades at Yale and Gore got a D in Natural Sciences at Harvard. By contrast, we know nothing of Obama's academic record though we presume it is awesome. If the grades are awesome, why not release them to great fanfare?  Even if they aren't great, he wouldn't be the first president with mediocre grades.

Root suggests that Romney agree to swap tax records for college transcripts.  He is certain that Obama  won't take the deal and will have to drop the tax record demands.  If that were to happen, it would almost certainly confirm Root's theory.

Tax Returns

Senator Harry Reid is still claiming that Mitt Romney has not paid taxes for ten years.  He says he has a credible source, an investor from Bain Capital.  I have some questions.  First, how would a Bain investor or even and employee know whether or not Romney had filed taxes?  The only people who should know are the Romney's, their accountant, and the IRS.  Second, why doesn't Senator Reid put this investor in touch with the IRS?  I'm sure the IRS would be eager to audit a multi-millionaire who didn't pay taxes for ten years.  If he did skip paying taxes for 10 years, how did they miss that?  Senator Reid has inadvertently made an argument for getting rid of an apparently incompetent agency that didn't notice the long gap in tax returns.

Since we are on the topic of releasing tax returns, word is out that Harry Reid became a multi-millionaire through shady land deals in Nevada while he has been Senator.  Clearly, Senator Reid needs to answer this rumor.  He has not released ANY tax returns.

One Baseless Claim Deserves Another

The majority leader said he was told that Romney "didn't pay any taxes for 10 years" by someone who invested with Bain Capital, Romney's former private equity firm. But Reid hasn't named names, and went so far as to admit that he didn't know if his information was accurate.

The Huffington Post

That's just great.  Harry Reid has just tossed a baseless allegation at Romney with the goal of making Romney disprove it by releasing his taxes.  In short, Romney is guilty until he proves his innocence.

Two can play that game.  I say that Obama had a GPA of only 2.2 while attending Columbia and failed Constitutional Law at Harvard.  Obviously, he's guilty unless he releases his transcripts.  The evidence for my claim is just as solid as for Reid's claim.

It is said that the first person to resort to name-calling has lost the argument.  So far, the Obama campaign or its surrogates have accused Romney of being a bully (incident where he cut a fellow student's hair when he was a teenager), a felon (supposedly misreporting when he departed Bain), a wimp (he's dodging the press and hiding his tax returns), and a tax cheat (Harry Reid's current claim).  The Obama campaign is throwing accusations and seeing what sticks.

The attacks on Romney are meant to deflect from the President's record.  Obama is not heralding the Stimulus or Obamacare.  He's not campaigning on bailouts.  The unemployment rate is worse today than when he was inaugurated.  The debt has grown by more than $5 trillion.  He did kill Osama bin Laden.  The record is not impressive.  If he can't win by positive accomplishments then he must resort to disqualifying his opponent.  Thus we have the long line of attacks.

Obama is in a very precarious position.  Europe is on the brink and could shove the world economy into recession.  The US economy is slowing down and threatening to dip back into recession.  The military cuts will provoke layoff letters the week before the election.  The most loyal Democratic constituency, African-Americans, is angry over his support for gay marriage.  Another loyal constituency, Jews, are not pleased by his relations with Israel.  In many ways, he has surprisingly little control over his fate, which should tell us something.

Augusta: The Latest Distraction

How is it that a club that has a membership of 300 has become a national issue? Both Obama and Romney are going to waste time talking about who a private club should allow to join? Hey, how about the deficit? How about the failure of Congress to pass a budget in 3 years? Maybe we could discuss employment. Or Iran’s nuclear program. No, instead we’re going to discuss a golf course and who gets to play the links. Good grief. The whole point of this is to distract from the real issues, such as those I mentioned. Also, it has the benefit of fitting into Obama’s War on Women narrative.

For the sake of argument, let us suppose that Augusta sees the error of its ways and starts allowing women as members. And let us even suppose that half of the memberships become available in the next 4 years. How many people benefit? Well, that would be 150 women, all of whom will be among the vilified richest One Percenters. This is what the leader of the free world wants to accomplish?

On a related note, the First Amendment says, among other things, that Congress shall make no law respecting … the right of the people peaceably to assemble. This is often referred to as the Freedom of Association. The government has no business telling private individuals with whom they must associate. This right became a casualty of the Civil Rights Movement.

Romney is the Nominee

It is painfully obvious to all that, barring some titanic gaffe, Romney is going to be the nominee. Even a titanic gaffe could do no worse than result in an open convention that would probably still select Romney. That said, it is time for Santorum to drop out. He cannot win the nomination and it is extremely unlikely he can deny the nomination to Romney by collecting enough delegates. At this point, Santorum can only diminish himself, which he has already started to do. He's managed to rehabilitate himself from his disastrous loss in 2006 and should quit rather than risk a loss in Pennsylvania again. He is positioned to be the frontrunner in 2016 much as Romney's successes in 2008 made him the current frontrunner.

Newt was out weeks ago but has refused to recognize it. However, he has no illusions that he might get another chance so he doesn't have the same calculus as Santorum. His political career is at an end so when he suspends his campaign that will be it. What bargaining power he had to suspend his campaign is gone so he can't even benefit from bowing out. But it was fun while it lasted.

Ron Paul is going to the convention. Though he has the fewest delegates, he has some of the staunchest supporters and, unlike Santorum or Gingrich, he could take them with him on a Quixotic third party run. Romney will have to show Paul some deference. Yes, despite his consistent 4th place showing, he has serious pull. Agian, I love Paul's domestic policies but think his foreign policies are naive.

I've mostly reconciled myself to Romney. If necessary, he will make the effort to repeal Obamacare - though he will fail unless the Republicans get a 60 seat majority in the Senate. I'm certain he will reduce the deficit; he has been a proponent of Paul Ryan's budget. He is far from my ideal candidate but a vast improvement over what I've currently got.

Straw Poll

As predicted, the Straw Poll broke Pawlenty. Beyond that, nothing should really be taken away from it. As an Iowa native, Bachmann always had a big advantage. Her advantage will be less in the Caucus but still noteworthy. It is also interesting that Perry, as a write-in candidate who didn't participate in the recent debate, received more votes than Romney, who was on the ballot and acquitted himself well in the debate.

The conventional wisdom has already narrowed the field down to Romney and Perry. Both have the fund-raising power that the other candidates lack. Both have executive experience, unlike most of the field. I have reservations about both.

Romney: Of course, Romneycare is a lodestone, mostly because it nixes Obamacare as a line of attack. He also parrots the climate change nonsense. It is also troubling that his 'conservatism' has been a slow and politically-motivated conversion. However, he speaks very well, has had a private sector job, and plenty of executive experience. I suspect I will be disappointed by a President Romney though not as disappointed as I am with President Obama.

Perry: Ron Paul had it right when he noted that Perry is from a Right-to-work state with no income tax and a business-friendly environment; Perry would have to make an effort to screw up the economy in relation to the other states. I am troubled by his longevity in office: he is the longest serving governor in state history, having just been elected to an unprecedented third term. Plus, he had finished out the last two years of Bush's 2nd term. Reminds me of FDR. Career politicians are usually trouble. Another downside is that he is the Texas Governor so soon after another Texas Governor was president. But, like Romney, I'd be less disappointed by a President Perry than a President Obama.

Time will tell if the conventional wisdom is valid.

Romney: the New McCain

Mitt Romney entered the race this week and already I'm disappointed. First, he still backs Romneycare. If government mandates that you have car insurance if you want to drive, that's one thing. One can opt not to drive and bypass this cost. The cost is associated with a privilege (i.e. driving). But when government mandates that you have health insurance if you want to not be a criminal, that's something entirely different. Granted, Romney has a point when he argues there is a difference between a state-mandate and a federal government mandate. He is arguing for federalism. Let the states be laboratories and great ideas will spread while bad ones will wither away. A federal mandate doesn't allow for bad ideas to wither away. But here's the thing: how can the electorate believe you want to restrain government when you clearly didn't at the state level? Furthermore, how can you make Obamacare a campaign issue when you have the albatross of Romneycare to bear? He neutralizes a huge campaign issue with his stance. Strike one on Romney.

During a campaign stop in New Hampshire, Romney stated his belief that humans contribute to global warming. "It’s important for us to reduce our emissions of pollutants and greenhouse gases that may be significant contributors." As I have said many times before, the earth was hotter 1000 years ago and there were no SUVs. At one point, the earth was so hot that Maine was in the tropics and northern Alaska was a rain forest. But this time around, it's our fault and we need to take measures that will have no demonstrable effect other than to impoverish our economy. Moreover, China will not participate in this folly, thus assuring America's relative decline. Strike two on Romney.

The campaign has hardly begun and he's already got two strikes against him. I would prefer him to Obama but he looks like this year's McCain.