Last night's debate, I thought, offered strong evidence that (as I suggested yesterday) McCain's persona would not have worn well if he had been the front-runner all year long. At a moment when he's poised to wrap up the nomination, and when he ought to be rising above the fray and trying to bring the party together, he kept on behaving as if Romney were the front-runner, and he was the scrappy underdog who needed to bring his rival down a notch.The distortions about Romney's record on the surge bothered me less than the classless digs he kept taking - the line about "for patriotism and not for profit," the references to Romney having spent his own money on the race, the crack about how "sometimes people get laid off" by successful businessmen, and so forth. Even in his response to the final question of the night, a vapid softball that asked the candidates to explain why Ronald Reagan would endorse them, he couldn't resist getting in a dig at Romney's flip-flopping. I know everybody in the field dislikes Mitt, and not without reason, but if I were Romney I would detest John McCain right about now - and I wouldn't be exactly chomping at the bit to go out and campaign for him come the fall.
« Missing Mrs. Huckabee | Main | McCain's Domestic Policy Problem »
McCain's Gracelessness
31 Jan 2008 08:17 am
Comments (30)
Interesting post. Gracelessness...a good word for the GOP in general. I was stunned how graceless Bush was in his State of the Union. He didn't thank the country for the honor of serving as president. The Talk Radio crowd is consistently mean and vindictive, always graceless. Before this thread evolves into rants on immigration and the gold standard, I'd like to hear some thoughts on why the class-obsessed so often lack class.
fougasseu,
Physician heal thyself. Democrats are not in the best position to talk about class right now. The Clinton's argument pre-South Carolina was essentially 'don't vote for Obama because he's black, and only black people will vote for him.' McCain was unnecessarily discourteous to Romney last night, but his jibes were not about Mormonism or any type of identity politics. I'm no fan of McCain - I wrote yesterday that he was undisciplined and had a temper; both of those characteristics were on display last night. However, the Democrats with the Clintons as their likely nominee have no grounds to criticize Republicans as class-less.
McCain is one of the most repellent politicians around. And that's saying a lot after 8 years of Bush. At one point, I was hoping Romney would deck him. The good thing about these debates is that, over time, they tend to reveal the true character of the participants. Despite all his flip-flopping and phoniness earlier in the campaign, we are seeing the true Romney: a likable enough technocrat.
Imitation being the sincerest form of flattery, the Clintons should bask in the glow of John McCain's Clintonian gloss on this fact: Ten months ago, Romney said that President Bush and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki should discuss, privately, "a series of timetables and milestones." That unremarkable thought was twisted by McCain, whose distortions are notably clumsy, as when Romney said, accurately, that he alone among the candidates has had extensive experience in private-sector business.
That truth was subjected to McCain's sophistry, and he charged that Romney had said "you haven't had a real job" if you had a military career. If, this autumn, voters must choose between Clinton and McCain, they will face, at least stylistically, an echo, not a choice.
Ross,
I have to lodge a mild dissent and defense of McCain last night. First, they were presumably all tired having traveled to CA just after such hard campaigning in FL, and all were off their games. But Romney and his shills in the self-appointed conservative orthodoxy brigades have been calling McCain a liar for pointing out that Mittens should have said "no timetables" rather than "secret timetables" (how is that a lie?), and all over him on not being enough of a businessman as a career politician. I don't like the "for country not for profit" line much, but it's the natural rejoinder to "I come from business, you come from Washington."
It appears that Mittens is no longer willing to spend his own money, and that this will likely be wrapped up next week. I'll be surprised if we don't see a more graceful McCain AND Romney then. But when all weekend everyone (even CNN pundits) were calling McCain a liar and an economic incompetent, that he did not turn on a dime 24 hours after winning FL is not a major sin in my book.
Didn't Mitt lie about the deporting illegals in 90 days question? He said he didn't say it, only to have his statement read back to him verbatim. He's done it before as well i.e. say he didn't say something that he did. In politics, everyone's a liar. Just because someone is good looking and glib, does not sanctify their lies. Mitt is an accomplished liar and he’s run a nasty campaign with tons of negative ads. I am surprised by this overflow of sympathy for him.
McCain McLies. His stubbornness to accept the truth on this topic is disgraceful and deplorable. It’s a shame when a grown man refuses to take responsibility and apologize for his dirty tactics and smear campaign to get political gain. I came across a quote the other day from you McCain during the 2000 election that states that you “would not take the low road to the high position for President”….so much for that promise? I guess times have changed, just like your politcal agenda (McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy, McCain-Lieberman)? It's time for the "staight talk, no walk" express to derail.
and I wouldn't be exactly chomping at the bit to go out and campaign for him come the fall.
But why would McCain care? Mitt was the Establishment consensus candidate, and the best funded candidate. Yet he cannot beat a 72 year-old man whose campaign was considered dead--advisors leaving, lack of money, no real press--maybe six months ago. I'm not sure Mitt brings in a lot of voters for McCain.
John Mccain is the type of guy you'd just to push down a flight of stairs.
Mccain is a prtty surly and angry scumbag.
As a Republican voter I will NEVER support John Mccain.
Maybe god will shine upon the GOP and America and Mccain will have a fatal heart attack before November.
I would have loved to see Mitt Romney smack the smirk off of McCain's mouth! John McCain blatantly lied about that quote - he didn't read it completely. In regard to "negative" ads - an ad which contrasts a record is NOT negative unless your record isn't one to be proud of. Mitt Romney hasn't attacked anyone on a personal level though Huckabee and McCain are constantly taking jabs at Romney. The dirty tricks played by McCain and Huckabee go uncalled by the media - McCain made the withdrawal accusation just a couple days before the Florida primary and Huckabee with his "innocent" (yeah, right) comment about what Mormons believe right before the Iowa Caucus - both of them make me sick! It's obvious that Huckabee is campaigning for McCain - their lovefest is sickening. Mitt Romney is the man to lead our country!
As a Republican voter I will NEVER support John Mccain. Maybe god will shine upon the GOP and America and Mccain will have a fatal heart attack before November.
You know, I'm beginning to think that Republican God is a real asshole.
Ron Paul doesn't make his case in the prettiest package or the prettiest words, but anyone that demeans his defense of the gold standard also demeans Reagan.
From page 421 of Robert Novak's autobiography The Prince of Darkness (on gold):
I asked Reagan: "What ever happened to the gold standard? I thought you supported it."
"Well," the president began and then paused (a ploy he frequently used to collect his thoughts), "I still do support the gold standard, but--"At that point, Reagan was interrupted by his chief of staff. "Now, Mr. President," said Don Regan, "we don't want to get bogged down talking about the gold standard."
"You see?" the president said to me, with palms uplifted in mock futility. "They just won't let me have my way."
I would have loved to see Mitt Romney smack the smirk off of McCain's mouth!
Instead of smacking him, what Romney should have done is playfully tussle McCain's hair. It would have been awesome seeing McCain sitting there with tussled hair for the rest of the debate, unable to do anything about it.
Elvis E writes: "You know, I'm beginning to think that Republican God is a real asshole."
Screw the elephant - the symbol for the current Repiglican Party should be a quivering sphincter. The party as a whole hasn't produced anything lately except steaming piles of feces. Expecting grace to emerge from such is simply not reasonable.
Limbaugh/Hannity '08! It's what these assholes crave. "The base" can't get any baser.
Didn't the Half-Hour News Hour tell us that it'd be Limbaugh/Coulter '08?
Anyway, McCain and Romney already detest each other, so it's not like this is anything new.
Would've been nice if McCain could've been the bigger man, but...
Moe, you seem rather obsessed with scatological allusions. I should suggest that you find a good shrink to talk about this.
Mccain ceased having any honor or dignity the day he walked out of that POW camp in Vietnam.
Ever since then he's been nothing but a sad, sorry disgrace to both this nation and the GOP.
How anyone could support his empty shell of a human being is beyond me.
There is no substance. There is no understanding of the issues.
There is only anger and spite.
God help America if John Mccain weasels his way into the White House.
There is no substance. There is no understanding of the issues. There is only anger and spite.
I don't know about ML&J's suggestion for the new GOP mascot, but that's not a bad slogan for them, right there.
At a moment when he's poised to wrap up the nomination, and when he ought to be rising above the fray and trying to bring the party together ...
Sounds nice in theory, but just imagine the post-debate analysis if McCain had acted that way. I can just imagine it: "McCain acted like this thing is all over." "McCain's air of I've-got-this-thing-in-the-bag dismissiveness was typically arrogant." "McCain's got fewer than 100 delegates -- who does he think he is?"
The simple fact is that this thing isn't over; the candidates were asked about issues that, as of last night, were still quite raw; and Romney clearly doesn't intend to go down without a fight. How McCain was supposed to wave his hand and act like the magnanimous frontrunner under such circumstances is beyond me.
At a moment when he's poised to wrap up the nomination, and when he ought to be rising above the fray and trying to bring the party together ...
Sounds nice in theory, but just imagine the post-debate analysis if McCain had acted that way. I can just imagine it: "McCain acted like this thing is all over." "McCain's air of I've-got-this-thing-in-the-bag dismissiveness was typically arrogant." "McCain's got fewer than 100 delegates -- who does he think he is?"
The simple fact is that this thing isn't over; the candidates were asked about issues that, as of last night, were still quite raw; and Romney clearly doesn't intend to go down without a fight. How McCain was supposed to wave his hand and act like the magnanimous frontrunner under such circumstances is beyond me.
If Romney didn't like getting dirty, he shouldn't have began the negative attacks back in Iowa and NH a few months ago. He's the first who went negative, and you havn't seen the other guys muddy it up with each other in the least. Romney can cry and whine all he wants, but the fact remains that the voters have rejected him. I had faith in the American people to reject his shameless pandering and lies, and they have proven me correct.
There's a difference between "going negative" and lying. I'm sick of people conflating the two. There's nothing wrong with going negative if you're being truthful. The problem with McCain's attacks on Romney isn't that he is attacking, its that he is lying.
There's a difference between saying correctly "McCain voted twice against the Bush tax cuts", "McCain supported amnesty" and saying Mitt Romney's supported withdrawal - McCain was clearly distorting the record.
As for 'shameless pandering and lies' Publius, we are in fact discussing a lie by John McCain. Also, this is politics and people are going to lie; McCain's changed his stance on immigration and 'forgot' criticizing Alito as a nominee. Now he says his immigration bill wouldn't get to a vote and that Alito is his model justice. You may find McCain a more attractive candidate, but that doesn't mean you need engage in intellectual prostitution by claiming that McCain doesn't pander or lie.
C'mon-- McCain's a giant among dwarves. It's about time Mitt came home to Massachusetts...uh, Utah...uh, Michigan... wherever the heck he's actually hanging his hat these days. McCain is the only candidate running, from either party, who is qualified for the top job, and he shouldn't have to prove himself against someone like Mitt Romney.
I agree with an earlier comment that McCain's jab at Mitt about patriotism over profit is called for as a response to Mitt's constant jabs at McCain for being a Washington insider. It's also silly to watch Romney out-spend his rivals by 5 to 1, only to lose. These slicksters who think they can buy elections need to put their egos in check and leave the campaign trail to those who've proven they can win votes. Not sure people outside New England realize this, but had Mitt run for re-election as MA governor, he would have lost-- to a charismatic African American Democrat. If he can't even make it here, how could he possibly wage a strong national campaign against Obama???
McCain's a giant among dwarves.
McCain's a dwarf among Lilliputians.
"Maybe god will shine upon the GOP and America and Mccain will have a fatal heart attack before November." Bill B.
This is a truly hateful thing to say. To wish God would kill anyone is morally questionable, but even if there are cases it's understandable this wouldn't be one. McCain is not Kim Jong-Il or Osama bin Laden. Get a grip.
"The problem with McCain's attacks on Romney isn't that he is attacking, its that he is lying." Jim W
I agree. It partly reminded me of why I switched from him to Bush in 2000. I'm still unimpressed with Romney, but I'm more sympathetic to him now than before.
Thomas R quotes and writes: ""The problem with McCain's attacks on Romney isn't that he is attacking, its that he is lying." Jim W
I agree. It partly reminded me of why I switched from him to Bush in 2000."
Smooth move. You ended up voting for a scumbag who's been lying through his teeth for 7 years straight.
"Smooth move. You ended up voting for a scumbag who's been lying through his teeth for 7 years straight."
I see the problem as the way I phrased it could lead one to think I meant I was right to switch to Bush. I wasn't.
I regret voting for that stammering spendthrift Bush. He ruined relations overseas, stayed loyal to incompetents, and damaged what was good about Republicans for years to come. He did do good on AIDS in Africa and for the Southern Sudanese, but a good deal of that is due to Danforth. He has done fairly well on Pro-Life issues I care about, but for a Religious-Right type person he's basically turned a blind-eye to the persecution of Christians in Central Asia and elsewhere. I wrote-in a name for the 2004 election rather than vote for him or Kerry.
Still in 2000 I did do it. And I did it because McCain acted similar to what he did the other night. I've had eight years to reflect though and I'm not going to make the same mistake this time. I still prefer McCain to Romney. I just meant I can sympathize with Romney a bit more because McCain, despite my preferences, at times can be a jerk.
Great post, about gracelessness; wonderful thread, devolving into a feast of insults and mean-spiritedness. Lovely irony.
Peggy Noonan's piece today in the WSJ quotes a note Ted Kennedy sent to Reagan, complimenting him thus: "The country is well served by your eloquent graceful leadership, Mr. President". Shows a bit of grace by Kennedy, as well.
The GOP has had a bit of a smirk problem lately. Bush, Cheney, McCain, guys like Limbaugh and Ailes, they all seem graceless to me because they either smirk or scowl (or wink), very Al Haig-like. Not much in between. Smirk, scowl, smirk, scowl. Reagan could be self-effacing and charming and generous with his compliments.
Obama has a touch of grace about him.
| 
Grand New Party: How Republicans Can Win the Working Class and Save the American Dream
Privilege: Harvard and the Education of the Ruling Class
Although I still prefer him to what's left I agree with most of your saying. McCain did come off as too negative and hostile. Also rather repetitive on his own matters.
Interestingly I think most of them goofed up on the last question, which struck me as weird and hard to answer honestly anyway. Romney's answer was okay, but kind of went on an on. Huckabee's seemed a gushy fawning way of nevertheless saying "I actually don't think he would endorse me." Like Reagan is the cool kid who he likes, but who probably wouldn't give him the time of day. Paul started good by saying Reagan actually did support one of his campaigns for Congress, but then blathered on about the Gold Standard. I wish one of them had said something like "I think this is a stupid question" or "I can't mind-read a dead man." (Granted you probably couldn't say that at the Reagan library, but sheesh asking who dead people would hypothetically support is really pushing it)
Posted by Thomas R | January 31, 2008 7:50 AM