At the 1992 Republican Convention in Houston, I had the unpleasant responsibility of telling Jack Kemp that he could not sit beside Jude Wanniski in the special area reserved for President George H. W. Bush’s cabinet. Wanniski, mentor to all supply-siders, had already begun his long descent into crackpottery; his efforts to oppose the  the first Gulf War with his buddy Louis Farrakhan made him persona-non-grata in Republican loyalist circles. While I understood the Kemp-Wanniski friendship, as the special assistant to the president for cabinet affairs in the White House, I had to enforce the party line in Houston.

As I now recall, much of my time in the first Bush White House was spent saying “no” to Kemp. But I did so with little enthusiasm.  Kemp was a troublemaker, yet it was hard not admire the effort. Ever since Bush had broken his no-new-taxes pledge, Kemp enjoyed grumbling about budget director Dick Darman and everyone else inside the White House whom he assumed was his enemy.

Like Wanniski, Kemp grew crankier and less politically reliable with age. Understandably, most of his obituaries focus on his glory days, linking his leadership in football to his eventual leadership in Congress. But the truth is, Kemp’s real contribution to Republican politics was his ability to create factions within his own party. That made him more exciting and interesting than most pols.

Look at his career. Kemp was more often a lone wolf, a dissenter, and a constant source of internecine warfare.  The Kemp-Roth tax cuts, the beginning of the Reagan Revolution, were really intended as a Molotov cocktail thrown toward the Nixon-era GOP establishment. By the time Reagan came to town, Kemp was bad mouthing his former friend David Stockman. His entire “empowerment” agenda in the early 1990s was a burr beneath Bush White House chief of staff John Sununu’s saddle. When he was forced to be a team player as VP nominee to his former enemy Bob Dole, the charm, the clever arguments, and odd-ball alliance-building disappeared.

I think that today’s GOP doldrums are due to the fact that it doesn’t have enough renegades like Kemp who buck the party line. The Republican Party has always been at its most exciting when the establishment powers are thrown off their game (think Goldwater, Reagan, the early Gingrich, McCain in 2000). Today I see a handful of earnest opposition leaders who all agree with one another. No wonder no one is listening. Until Republicans start fighting with one another again, the party will have trouble finding the road back to popularity.

I’ve always thought that alarmist talk about the federal budget deficit was largely partisan posturing, and I’m not all that worked up about deficits we will obviously incur in the years ahead.  But I was struck this morning when Barack Obama candidly and unapologetically said  his stimulus plan will expand the federal budget deficit.

There will be no shortage of conservatives and libertarians who jump all over the Obama Administration’s spending for the next several months.  But where are all the self-appointed Democratic budget hawks who have been shouting “fire” these last eight years?

Remember Alice Rivlin, Clinton’s budget chief?  A year ago she told the Washington Post that Bush’s legacy “is having blown an opportunity to ameliorate the long-run budget deficits.”  Two years earlier, Brookings budget watchdog Isabel Sawhill was even more dramatic when she complained about “bequeathing a fiscal mess of biblical proportions.”

Paul Krugman saw the federal deficit as a character flaw: “As a drunk is to alcohol, the Bush administration is to budget deficits,” he wrote in 2003.  Apparently the argument hasn’t lost any of its freshness. Only a few months ago, Thomas Friedman was still making the same case.  “Under George W. Bush, America has foisted onto future generations a huge financial burden to finance our current tax cuts, wars and now bailouts,” he intoned.  It’s not just the liberal columnists, either.  Remember how Tim Russert used to trot out his Bush deficit chart to embarrass whatever Republican was foolish enough to go on his show.  Or look back at this sanctimonious conversation between Pete Peterson and CNN’s resident blowhard Jack Cafferty.

Finding these angry, self-righteous condemnations of the Bush budget deficits is like shooting fish in a barrel.  Just Google “mortgaging our children’s future,” “assault on our grandchildren,” “burdening future generations” or any of the other favorite hackneyed phrases used by the Bush haters who transformed themselves into pious priests of austerity during the past eight years.

The obvious question:  how much will we hear from them in the coming year?  Are they wringing their hands about the budget consequences of the Obama?  If so, they are doing it very quietly.

During the earlier debates, I thought Obama was skillful, but sometimes lost. When he didn’t know a topic, he just punted (remember his rambling answer on Russia during the last debate). But tonight he seems to be at his logical, calm, rhetorical best. What strikes me is how different he is from candidate Bill Clinton in 1992. Clinton was a folksy, at ease, and hugely knowledgeable debater. But every statement from Clinton always seemed wrapped in a veneer of insincerity. Even when he knew a topic cold, you couldn’t really be persuaded that he believed what he was saying. His criticism of George H.W. Bush always had an edge. Obama is very different. Sometimes he seems out of his depth. He doesn’t show his cards. Listening to him, I’m left wondering what he would actually do as president since he relies on a lot of uncontroversial, good government bromides. But he seems more serious, less angry, and more trustworthy than Clinton. In these times, that makes him a better debater.

Schieffer brings in Roe v. Wade in a far more sophisticated way than any reporter I’ve heard: would you nominate someone who disagrees with you on this issue. This is a very nuanced question. I think McCain, on the facts, has the upper hand here: he voted for Ginsburg and Breyer, but Obama, in lockstep with the left, voted against Chief Justice Roberts. So Obama simply talks about Roe and equal pay rather than his demonstrated ideological rigidness. Schieffer should have pressed him to answer the good question.

McCain has tried tonight, and in the past, to try to make Obama’s health care plan sound like Hillary’s. It won’t work because it isn’t true, as Obama explained pretty clearly. The real line of attack is that Obama’s plan does nothing to control costs. In Massachusetts, where employers are forced to provide health insurance, costs have soared. Almost every decent health economist recognizes that, but McCain has never developed this argument. Instead, he has relied on the more pedestrian argument of trying to tell us that Obama wants socialism.

Alas, McCain can only talk about energy policy by talking about drilling. That’s it. Obama doesn’t really have much of a plan himself, but he is able to list three things he would do. He sounds more organized, more thoughtful, and not at all reckless. The problem is that McCain is running on experience and soundbites, which isn’t enough.

McCain did as well as he could with this hot potato. I’m surprised he didn’t make more of the fact that he chose a woman when Obama passed over Hillary Clinton. Why not wake up that sleeping dog?

Schieffer has let this debate about the conduct of the campaign go on for far too long. Why does anyone other than reporters care about whether the campaign is “nasty.” Don’t reporters say that about every presidential campaign? The fact that we can spend ten minutes on this bolsters Obama’s claim that the public is cynical about Washington politics.

On CNBC, the network is showing graphs of the Asian markets tanking. The debate is reduced to a small box in the bottom right.

That is all Obama is trying to do tonight: sound reasonable. McCain is hitting him with clean, hard punches (”if you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have done it four years ago”). But Obama never flinches, even when he has nothing to say. McCain, alas, by touting his own record, sounds defensive.

He needs to do something “big” to shift the focus to his ideas. This is obvious. But anything that smacks of a “big plan” invariably receives criticism from base Republicans, which the media is eager to over-report. Indeed, John Harwood immediately reported on CNBC that he was receiving “emails from Republicans” who hated McCain’s proposal to have Treasury intervene in the mortgage market. Or go read the responses to McCain’s answers in The Corner: fears of rising big government Republicanism are rampant again. McCain still has time to make a few big swings, but he has to accept the fact that he will not make the base happy.

Despite the clumsy rules, the faux town hall setting, and Brokaw’s miserable efforts to raise his profile as moderator, this was, as a pure debate, a good evening for McCain. In the majority of exchanges, he gave a crisp answers, restated the question to put Obama on the defensive, and then pounded away on Obama’s record. On a few questions — like his statement on a foreign policy doctrine — Obama shined. But for the most part, he sat back, rarely responding to McCain’s blows, but never falling down. He played Ali to McCain’s Foreman. His last answer about preparing for the unexpected was more poetic than McCain’s solid, emotional effort. But one has to wonder, at this point, if McCain needs more than good debating points and solid hits. I agree with those who said he really has to roll out a bigger, more ambitious economic plan — and he failed to do that tonight. CNBC just put up the fact that the Seoul markets are down 2.6%. Neither candidate knows what to do about the global financial meltdown. But tonight, McCain needed to show that he had a better plan.

On this question, Obama seemed to be genuinely flailing. He stuttered, agreed with McCain, mentioned former Soviet states, talked about 21st century challenges, then talked about Afghanistan. A complete punt.

What exactly is the point of having a “town hall” if you are going to take questions from the Internet? There are far too few people in the audience, robbing McCain the kind of crowd he needs to laugh at his occasional jokes. Boy is this whole debate poorly conceived.

I’m sure all these questioners are well-intentioned, decent folks. But it would be great if we could learn something about who these people are; ie, have they donated to campaigns?; are they declared supporters?; have they ever worked for candidates of either party?; are they union members, veterans, etc? The press apparently had the list of all the questioners in advance, including in what order their questions would come. Couldn’t one network get up a chyron with some relevant background on each person who asks a question?

For a guy who is usually hard to control, McCain is delivering tight, crisp, and extremely effective answers. Every answer has a similar structure: (a) I care about this issue (b) I’ve stood up against Bush/special interests on this issue (c) Obama has never taken a stand, never acted on this (d) so let’s compare records. Is it enough to win the debate?

Just as this debate was picking up and McCain launched his broadside against Obama’s planned tax increases, Brokaw stepped in to make sure that Obama couldn’t directly respond. Then he introduced a dull question about entitlements and, to add insult to injury, asked the candidates to “pledge now” on some Social Security issue. This was right out of Tim Russert’s old playbook. James Fallows called the pledge question on of the worst types of debating tropes.

So far, he is proving to be a worse moderator than the robotic Gwen Ifill. He keeps reminding the candidates about a time limit that he is incapable of enforcing. And his follow-up questions disrupt the flow of the debate by raising new topics, rather than drilling down on what was just said.

Obama likes to enumerate the things he will do. Even if his plan doesn’t really have more than one part, the ability to create a list makes him sound serious and well-prepared. As pure debating technique, it’s a winner.

McCain just gave the core argument he needs to give: Obama has no record as a reformer. After this solid case, Brokaw moves quickly to change the topic.

Obama’s opening was very strong. He described the bailout as “just step one.” Then he moved quickly to everyone’s favorite scapegoat, financial industry executives. His mention of the AIG junket was perfect. Then he wrapped it up with a potent phrase: a “middle class rescue package.” Powerful stuff. McCain’s response seemed a little scattered — energy, federal spending, homes. But in truth, his answer — fix the mortgage problem by getting the Treasury Dept. buy up the bad loans — was more substantive. Why he then went on to endorse Warren Buffet — Obama’s advisor is a mystery to me. And Meg Whitman at Treasury? Based on her experience overseeing jewelry auctions? Ugh.

 Every former speechwriter likes to give armchair advice about what a candidate ought to say.  Here is where I think John McCain should go tonight:My friends, over the past seven years, we have seen the two things we trusted in most badly shaken.  Seven years ago, on 9/11, we lost our sense of domestic security when the most savage act of terrorism in our history occurred.  Thank God we have not seen another attack since.  But the war in Afghanistan, Iraq, and the terrorism that continues around the world tells us all that we are living in a very different world from the one I grew up in.

More recently, we have seen our economic security badly shaken.  I’ve heard from dozens of people in just the last few days who have seen years of savings disappear in what increasingly appears to be a global financial crisis.  The trust we had in private and government institutions has been shattered.

To find our way back from these two crises – the security crisis and the economic crisis – requires thinking about the world in a new way.  It requires questioning basic assumptions. It requires taking on sacred cows and confronting powerful groups.

That is precisely what I have done my whole career. I’ve been in Washington a long time, but as anyone will tell you, I’ve made a lot of enemies. 

I’ve stood up against my party. Against my friends.  Against my supporters.  Against my president.  When the Democrats in Congress wanted to expand the unchecked power of Fannie Mae, I warned against it.  When the Republican Secretary of Defense refused to put more troops in Iraq in order to win, I railed against him. When the wealthiest political donors wanted unfettered access to Washington, I challenged them regardless of party.  Rush Limbaugh thought I was a disastrous choice to lead my party. So did the ultra-liberals at the Daily Kos.

You can only win that type of bipartisan enmity when you think outside of the system.  When you refuse to go along.  When you don’t play by the rules.  That is who I am, and I admit it without apology.

Senator Obama is a very new face in national politics.  But his brand of politics is very old.  He keeps trying to tie me to President Bush.  What he won’t tell you is how, since arriving in Washington, he has marched in lockstep with his party’s establishment.  He votes 96 percent of the time with his party.  He is cautious when you need to be bold.  He is conventional when the country needs innovation.

He talks about bipartisan politics – but he never reached out to the other side.  He has never pushed a new idea.  He has never stuck his neck out in the Senate.  In Springfield, where he served in the Illinois State Legislature, every time a tough issue came up, he voted present.  He is a beautiful orator, but he is a typical politician. He thinks inside the system.  He offers nothing new.

Today, we need a different type of leadership.  A different type of thinking.  A willingness to challenge the status quo.  An ability to create a new type of politics.

Barack Obama is an outstanding man and our country should be proud to have him in national politics.  But at the moment, we need someone with a record a new thinking and hard decisions.  Those are the hallmarks of my career in the Senate.  Those will be the hallmarks of my presidency.

What do you think?

At around 8:15 this morning, I walked into the sports complex at the Grove Park Inn in Asheville, North Carolina.  It is about two minutes from my home and has served as my regular exercise space.  It is almost always deserted.  As I entered the gym, I spied a unavoidably conspicuous Secret Service agent.  And then suddenly Barack Obama walked in, sat on the stationary bike next to me, and started his routine.

Word around town had it that Obama was rehearsing in Asheville for tonight’s debate in Nashville.  He staged a rally at the local high school on Sunday and a fundraiser at the Grove Park Saturday night. I assumed he wasn’t staying at the hotel, a grand old Asheville landmark, because there was no visible security presence around.

As Obama started pedaling, I introduced myself and told him that, though I was a McCain supporter, I was glad he was the Democratic nominee.  We talked about the beauty of Asheville in the autumn. I told him I had lived in Nashville for a decade, where he will journey today to appear in tonight’s debate with John McCain, and that he should give regards tonight to my former Congressman, Jim Cooper. Cooper is a real blue dog Democrat, a budget hawk, and surely one of the smartest guys in the House. I told Obama that if elected, he should appoint Cooper as head of the Office of Management and Budget. He didn’t take the bait, but let me know that Cooper has been his long-time supporter.

While on the treadmill, I had been watching Zbigniew Brzezinski plugging his book on his daughter’s morning show on MSNBC.  It was Zbig’s usual “eight years of failed leadership” talk and the need to be more “intelligent” on foreign policy.  Since no one else seemed to notice Obama’s presence – there were maybe five people in the gym – I decided to take full advantage of this informal advice-giving moment.  ”Don’t listen to Brzezinski, he’s awful,” I told him. “He’s on TV talking about making deals with the Taliban.” He didn’t respond.

Two observations about my odd encounter with greatness. First, if Obama wins, I think the question of  Jim Cooper’s presence or lack thereof in a senior post will be a bellwether. Cooper has lots of friends on the Republican side and lots of Democratic enemies. While I think some of his judgments are wrong, he is a “bitter medicine” budget guy who won’t sign off on runaway spending.  We will get a good sense of the direction of a Democratic Administration based on his inclusion or exclusion.

Second, Obama’s security bubble – indeed, his whole manner — seemed extraordinarily low key. Yes, he had Secret Service guys outside the gym and no doubt more outside the building. But for about 40 minutes, Obama walked around the gym, walked to the water cooler, stretched, lifted weights, and meandered around the equipment in an unhurried way without a trace of self-importance. I remembered back to my days traveling with Bob Dole in the final weeks of the 1996 campaign. In Michigan, riding on a campaign bus to some Grand Rapids high school, the Secret Service shut down the Interstate. In both directions.

I’m reluctant to draw any deep meaning from accidental encounters such as this, but I have to say, the total absence of the standard imperial characteristics of late-stage presidential campaigns was impressive.

What a disappointment for Saturday Night Live writers! Palin not only avoided gaffes, but held her own, put Biden on the ropes on occasion, and gave voice to ordinary Americans. Her closing statement, with a Reaganesque reference to “our sunset years,” made her very appealing, patriotic, and serious. Biden was well-prepared, but was so intent on getting his “facts” out that he seemed to suck the life out of the evening. His efforts to discredit McCain as just a Bush clone seemed inauthentic. But he knows his stuff and didn’t make any errors. Her performance glowed at times. At other times she seemed to stumble. But by refusing to fall into the traps that Biden and Ifill set for her, she did much more than survive. It was no convention performance, but it may have given more than a handful of people, skeptical of media, worried about the future of the country, a reason to vote for McCain.

So says Biden. What a strange line of argument! McCain has spent much of the past decade as a Republican pariah, and everyone knows that. This argument of Biden’s is about as persuasive as his earlier attempt to tell everyone that McCain really voted against funding the troops.