McCain abandons decency, sense of propriety
It’s a presidential campaign. The candidates have very different ideologies, strongly disagree with one another, and want to take the country in very different directions. It’s bound to lead to some sharp criticism, especially on issues as important as a war.
But John McCain — you know, the one who vowed to the nation that he would run a positive, substance-driven campaign — continues to push the decency envelope to the breaking point.
Take these comments yesterday in New Hampshire, for example.
For those who can’t watch clips online, McCain told a town-hall audience, “[T]his is a clear choice that the American people have. I had the courage and the judgment to say that I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”
For months, the McCain campaign has been itching to go after Obama’s patriotism. Apparently, they’ve figured out how they’d like to proceed.
Not to put too fine a point on it, John McCain effectively accused Obama of treason yesterday. He didn’t use the word, but he suggested Obama deliberately wants to lose a war to improve his political standing.
Time’s Joe Klein, who up until recently praised McCain’s decency as a candidate, responded, “This is the ninth presidential campaign I’ve covered. I can’t remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. It smacks of desperation. It renews questions about whether McCain has the right temperament for the presidency. How sad.”
I’m not sure if “sad” cuts it.
Klein added on CNN last night:
“McCain has been overstating his case throughout, in part for effect. I suppose the question is, does he really believe this? But what he said today — and David Gergen is absolutely right about this — what he said about Barack Obama being willing to lose a war to win an election is the most scurrilous thing that I have heard a presidential candidate say in the nine elections I have covered.
“Scurrilous things have been said before, but they’re usually said by aides, and the fact — or by spokespeople. And the fact that John McCain would choose to do this by himself is a very significant moment in this campaign.”
Quite right. If some pseudo-independent 527 launched this as part of some smear, it wouldn’t be especially surprising. But John McCain is supposed to be an honorable man, running a respectable campaign.
I’d just add that the remarks in New Hampshire may have been off the cuff, but they weren’t accidental. Less than a week ago, McCain’s senior foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, offered an almost identical message, and Marc Ambinder added that the attack is now part of McCain’s talking points.
I’ve long felt that the challenge of being a good political writer is knowing, or at least learning, how to express an emotional reaction without losing one’s cool. It’s tempting to let one’s frustration out, writing in all-caps, and using every expletive that comes to mind — maybe even making up some new ones — in order to fully convey one’s sense of disgust. But that, in some ways, is too easy. It’s more of a challenge to convey the same sense of revulsion without flying off the handle.
So, I’ll just say this: John McCain is not an honorable man. Political candidates of strong moral character do not do what John McCain is doing.
Maybe it won’t matter. Perhaps voters aren’t paying enough attention. Maybe just enough Americans will be scared by email smears, Obama’s middle name, and the color of Obama’s skin to tilt the election in the other direction.
But John McCain has no business leading the greatest nation on earth.
What is the difference between Obama’s plan for withdrawal and JSMcC*nt’s plan for withdrawal from Iraq.
Only the authors.
JSMcC*nt can look at the conditions in Iraq and claim victory because he’s JOHN MCCAIN!
The popularly elected President of The United States of America can’t because..
..[whisper] he’s a secret muslim black liberal socialist democrat loser [/whisper]
Right…..
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, in their minds only JSMcC*nt and Joe LIEberman can decide when we’ve won in Iraq. The American people get no input into this decision.
While I totally agree with you, Steve, about not losing one’s cool in order to express oneself, I just don’t see a couple of things happening:
1) The media will not pounce on this, as they probably should;
2) We’ve become so desensitized (we, as in Americans) to throwing out slanderous terms like ‘traitor’, ‘cut-and-run’, etc., from the right-wing that even though the bar gets lower and lower, no one seems to care.
McCain wants to be president because well, he just wants to be president! He has no new ideas, his policies are the same old same old republican crap we’ve had for 28 of the last 40 years.
Really, why is John McCain so damn desperate to be president? Seems to me that he is only trying to satisfy his overly inflated ego.
Is that what we want in a candidate? Someone who aspires to hold the highest office in the land simply to say he’s president?
I have noticed that the entire McCain campaign has been one big Gaff. Look I think McCain served this country and demands the up most respect. He is probably even a patriot. But it is a cold fact of life when you get older you dull intellectually. I think McCain just isnt as sharp as a president needs to be. We cant elect presidents on the mere fact that they are a war hero., They need to be able to function as a president functions. Here is a site that has videos of all of the mccain gaffs. It also has a video of McCain falling asleep on the Conan Obrien show., I cant believe this video isnt being shown on the news more. Wow.! I will leave the link its
http://www.mccanes.com
I would like to take the opportunity to say I would not vote for a McCain Romney ticket, I might a McCain / Huckabee ticket. Here is a link that has all of the Romney attack ad videos, that Romney released against McCain during the primary, along with a video of romney calling McCain dishonest. How could McCain even consider picking Romney. I think the McCain camp is trying to sabotage McCain. The link to the videos is http://www.hotpres.com
You can sign a petition to make Huckabee the VP at http://www.TheVeep.com
I think the moderate voters who are unfamiliar with John “McNasty” McCain will see these comments and compare them to the thoughtful style Obama projects, and they will make the right decision.
Nobody (OK, a few people) believes that Obama wants to lose the Iraq war (which is an oxymoron anyway, since you can’t “win” an occupation).
The American people, as addled as they are, will see this for what it is: desperation, Republican style. What progressives need to do is remain calm, and remind people how ugly Bob Dole got when he was losing.
Really, why is John McCain so damn desperate to be president?
Same reason Dole had. It’s his turn.
McCain must have had a stroke and they are covering it up. This could explain why he is acting the way he is. He also could be suffering dementia. He is so angry and grumpy. Maybe he is just too old to trust with this level of responsibility and authority. I don’t think he is crazy, but there are clearly some psycholoical issues going that disqulify him from being in charge of all of our futures. He had his shot in 2000 and Bush/Cheney/Rove screwed him. He ought to just pack it in and retire and enjoy his last few years.
Meanwhile here’s how the McCain camp responded to those who called out his lie on CBS:
OK so Obama wants to (a) Lose the war and (b) Minimize our troops – what’s that pungent smell – could the Rovians be in the house?
Speaking of decency and propriety, I have to say the Pamela Anderson video ad in the sidebar is really tacky.
Patrick: [McCain] had his shot in 2000 and Bush/Cheney/Rove screwed him.
Makes me wonder which would have been worse. No tellin’.
Here, I think, is how all of these “gaffes” manifest themselves: during the debates, Obama will remind McCain about his many ill-timed, ill-tempered remarks and McCain will deny them. Obama, if he is smart, should then say yes you did and you should be honest in front of the American people and own what you really believe; I do. Then you get McCain pissed and you get the post-debate truth squads something to do. The right way to do it is to use the precise words Mccain used so that the truth squads cannot create wiggle room. We saw this a bit with Mccain’s claimed (lack of ) knowledge of economics.
So, if I am Obama I say that it was scurriolous for McCain to say “______” and to rid our politics of such hurtful and partisan discourse is one reason why he wants to be president.
Repeat that through out and MCCain will not be able to keep up with all of his different stories and flip-flops,.
Imagine if Obama had said it…
Makes me wonder which would have been worse. No tellin’.
I’ve been wondering the same thing myself. I used to think that if McCain had been in the White House on 9/11 things would have been different. I still think they might have been different (I doubt we’d have tromped into Iraq without W in office), but I’m not so sure they would have been better anymore. Ah well, until we perfect the What-If Machine technology, no one can know.
We can know that Racer X is right about the Pam Anderson ad in the sidebar, though. And it certainly skirts a little to close to the ‘not safe for work’ provision on images for some of the places I’ve worked in the past…
1) The media will not pounce on this, as they probably should;
Well. Joe Klein is pouncing on it — but …
2) We’ve become so desensitized (we, as in Americans) to throwing out slanderous terms like ‘traitor’, ‘cut-and-run’, etc., from the right-wing that even though the bar gets lower and lower, no one seems to care.
… this is the problem — as soon as you say someone’s gone too far in accusing a Democrat of disloyalty to country, the public tunes out. That’s because the public has been conditioned to believe it’s a safe bet that any given Democrat hates America.
So good for you, Steve, for trying to make an issue of this, and good for Joe Klein, but this one won’t get traction.
John McCain was an honorable man who is seeing his life’s greatest personal ambition as close to achievement as it has ever been — but now is witnessing it slipping away forever. It makes him desparate. He wants to say to the world, like Bob Dole, “where’s the outrage?”, What’s needed is someone to say to McCain, “Have you no shame?”
McCain’s accusation is really nasty and needs to be challenged. If I was the Obama communications director, I would get all the Obama friends to hit the airwaves condeming McCain for his slur. Joe Biden should be on TV, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd, Sam Nunn, Max Cleland, Bill Richardson, Dick Lugar, everyone. I hope that happens.
To me, McCain’s character assissination was the biggest story from yesterday and he should be slammed very hard for it.
1. On July 23rd, 2008 at 10:07 am, Lance said:
What is the difference between Obama’s plan for withdrawal and JSMcC*nt’s plan for withdrawal from Iraq.
Only the authors.
Actually, I believe it was on NPR last night driving home, I actually heard a McCain spokesperson say that the difference is that McCain would leave Iraq in victory and Obama would leave in defeat.
Got that? They now both say they would leave in 16 months more or less based on the circumstances on the ground. There is nothing substantively different in when or how they would leave per their current (for McCain, that is “newfound”) positions. But if McCain gave the order, it would be a victory. There mere fact that Obama — liberal, black, maybe-socialist, elitist, maybe-Muslim that he is – gives the order means it is a defeat.
Again, welcome to Wonderland. Don’t worry, we have a nice choice of pills that may help.
John McCain is not an honorable man.
Ya think?
But John McCain has no business leading the greatest nation on earth.
He won’t. If we elect him we will have absolutely no claim to being th greatest nation on earth.
If not before this trip, McCain was toast. Unless he comes up with something stronger, a benign chuckle or ‘there he goes again’ will do. He has lost the right to be taken seriously. Anything more than bemusement could backfire, however.
I’m picturing people outside the U.S. reading “greatest nation on earth,” penned in apparent seriousness with the events of the last eight years fresh in everyone’s minds, and I see those people rolling their eyes in utter contempt. And I’m right behind them.
Can we lay off the nationalism, as well meant as it may be, until we do something tangible to get our house in order and reverse the outrageous jingoism of the Bush administration?
You folks can argue about decency and such, but I’m stuck trying to work out the logic.
“I would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war.”
Okay, so then you imply that losing the campaign could or would allow the war to be won, right? Whatever winning means. So, Obama is trying to oblige you by kindly letting you lose the campaign. You should be happy about that. But no, then you go and complain:
“It seems to me that Obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.”
So, you don’t want to win the war? Winning the campaign IS actually more important to you? Then why didn’t you say so in the first place? I’m still confused.
McCain wins, the war is lost. Obama wins, the war is won. That is implied in the logic of the premise. Isn’t it? So quit fussing and lose, like a good sport, for the sake of America.
Of course, I realize there is no logic in politics, especially from the right side of things, so nevermind.
This was not some off the cuff comment said in the heat of the moment. The little self-congratulatory smile at the end is a dead giveaway that this is a line he was given and coached to deliver, and he is pleased with himself that he delivered it well, and got applause for it.
A certain amount of nationalism is merely bowing to reality and human nature. Anyone who denounces nationalism absolutely,at this time, is foolish or corporate.
Re # 1 and # 18.
Gee, zeitgeist, did you read ALL of my post?
Remember, Barack Obama’s trip overseas is getting alot, ALOT. more attention and coverage than John McCain’s townhall meetings. Importantly, Obama is conducting himself in every way presidential. There is noticable respect from the leaders he’s meeting with (and he and they actually seem engaged). John McCain is coming across as bitter, jealous, duplicitous and mean-spirited…and OLD. None of this is good for John McCain no matter how the media tries to turn its head.
I will make a prediction. Obama’s overseas trip will not go unanswered. I expect shortly before the election (early or mid October?) John McCain will make a surprise, unannounced trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. He will not be seen meeting with leaders, but we will see massively staged and choreographed rallies before the cheering troops.
Does it occur to anyone else that JSMcC*nt is calling all the American Soldiers and Marines who died before the Surge losers because he claims that Boy George II was ‘losing’ the war until HIS escalation policy was adopted.
Should we just hang some ribbons on their grave stones that say “Declared a Loser by John Sidney McCain” and make a video?
Anyone who denounces nationalism absolutely,at this time, is foolish or corporate.
I have no idea what this is supposed to mean. Do you?
The fact is that the rest of the world was amused by Americans’ never-ending “greatest show on earth” mantra when we had much more claim to that title. After the atrocities committed in our names over the last few years, it isn’t quite so funny anymore; it goes beyond the usual clueless American arrogance to become willful contempt. A little restraint in sloganeering is the better part of valor right now.
26. On July 23rd, 2008 at 11:04 am, SaintZak said:
I will make a prediction. Obama’s overseas trip will not go unanswered. I expect shortly before the election (early or mid October?) John McCain will make a surprise, unannounced trip to Iraq and Afghanistan. He will not be seen meeting with leaders, but we will see massively staged and choreographed rallies before the cheering troops.
Will there be a “Mission Accomplished” banner involved? Will McCain wear a flight suit?
What Maria said. “Greatest nation on earth.” And your metrics would be, what? The number of flyovers before baseball games?
The worth of a modern conservative is not an absolute, it is relative to the people they can demean, which they do with viciousness as if their lives depended upon it. Only by trampling and holding others down can they establish their own worth. It’s a mental illness spread by appealing to the worst in us.
‘Anyone who denounces nationalism absolutely,at this time, is foolish or corporate.’
It means that the primary obligation of a government and corporations, sheltered by a country’s military, is to the overall wellbeing of the country, not the GDP or the arithmetic average. It means Clinton sold out America too with NAFTA.
McCain has jumped the shark.
His time to rise was in 2000, but he got kneecapped and failed. He does however have alotta good will built up in the media. But it looks like he burning some of that up by spouting BS.
He seems desparate and bitter these days.
The modern capitalist system with nanosecond trading, hedge funds(shame on Chelsea), unregulated bubble driven nonsense, et al bears no resemblance to Adam Smith’s conception of what capitalism is. Free Capitalism is just another idealistic dream, such as Karl had.
McCain’s entire message has devolved into “Obama sucks, don’t vote for him.” Way to run a positive campaign, John.
Before I get to the main point of this, just a comment to Michael7…
“Modern capitalism” — at least in America — began with the Supreme Court decision that made corporations “persons in the eyes of the law.” It was a long time ago, shortly after the Civil War, but by that time Karl Marx was already dead, and Adam Smith, in fact, died in 1790. The capitalism both of them wrote about was ‘entrepreneur capitalism,’ a completely different thing. Neither of them anticipated anything like what — for both bad and good — capitalism would turn into, neither of them took into account things they couldn’t possibly anticipate — for example, international companies, or even companies dealing with markets outside of their immediate area, advertising, etc.
Despite the way conservatives and some progressives like to hit their opponents with plaster statues of their ‘heroes’ the fact is that both of them are as irrelevant to the modern world as are the economic proscriptions in the Qur’an or the Bible.
In fact, every day we can see examples of how they ‘got it wrong.’ (A trivial one, but both would have, I believe, accepted ‘the economy of scale’ that larger companies would, by reason of their buying power, be able to sell goods more cheaply — and that it would be to their advantage to do so absent a monopoly. I live in an area serviced by four different national drug store chains, theoretically much cheaper than a local drug store. I shop at a ‘family-owned’ drug store because, almost without exception they are cheaper on almost everything.)
On the other hand, perhaps it is showing my age, but I think a reading of Galbraith is still very relevant.
the ‘they’ in the last line of the next to last paragraph should read ‘it’ — that is, the local store is cheaper than the chains.
Now to the main point, which just needs echoing, not amplification. But Klein not only features it in his blog, but many of the comments are — unusual for most blogs of the type — well worth reading. Two quotes just from the opening ones that belong in the “I wish I’d said that’ category:
From “GySgt213”
“Okay McCain is attempting to take complete credit for the surge. Was the surge not GW’s idea along with his generals? McCain was a supporter yes, but was it his idea?”
From “RKA”
“If we follow what McCain is saying to its logical conclusion, John McCain is saying that the voters want to lose the war in Iraq.
He’s not just insulting Obama, he’s impugning the American people as well because they think there are more important things than fighting a war in which there were no WMD’s and no Al Qaeda until we broke the country to let them in.
The Surge, even if successful (and that is being generous), is nothing more than digging us out a hole we should never have dug in the first place.”
From Paul Dirks:
“I’ve harped before on the inappropriatness of the terms ‘winning’ and ‘losing’ when applied to Iraq, mainly because the terms always refer to an end state. The McCain vision for Iraq doesn’t include an end state, so the use of the terms are inherently dishonest.”
And those were just from the first few.
um, Lance, you apparently took my post to be somehow in opposition to or correcting yours, which was not the case. I was adding to and amplifying because i agreed with it. i read the whole comment. consider decaf.
Zeitgeist, I don’t drink coffee. You’re comment read to me more like you thought I’d missed the point, not that you were amplifying it. If you were amplifying, I appreciate that.
But simply, Senator JSMcC*nt can declare victory, President Obama can only achieve defeat.
Ammusing, considering that JSMcC*nt and other Republican’t congressmen forced us out of Somalia, LOSING that war and helping to inspire the very attacks on 9/11 that they blame on President Clinton.
So, what do you call deliberately starting a war or continuing to wage that war to improve your political advantage?
Meanwhile here’s how the McCain camp responded to those who called out his lie on CBS:
“Democrats can debate whether the awakening would have survived without the surge,[…] — Ohioan, @9
I find this *fascinating*. Yesterday, we heard that surge happened *first*, awaking second — matter of historical facts, according to McCain. Now, he implies that the awakening *had*, indeed, started before the “surge”.
Backpedal much, Senator?
And, of course, that statement contains another lie… Democrats are not questioning whether or not the awakening would have survived without the surge; they’re questioning McCain’s confusion re the order in which those two things happened.
I wrote a little bit about this yesterday, after hearing it on NPR. You know, I don’t think McCain was conscious enough about the ramifications of this statement. Since he’s pandering to the smallest common intellectual denominator, all he has to do is make it sound good, no matter how nonsensical the logic of these two sentences taken together actually is. Because stuff that sounds good will run on Linbaugh and O’Reilly (the only “news” outlets he’s got left, uh, right, after the big three have deserted him for Obama).
In other words, I think you’re giving his intentions too much intellectual credit. The words themselves, of course–yeah, I agree with you.
Increasingly I am creeped out by his inapproriate smiles and chuckles such as the grin after this statement. It says to me he is uncomfortable making such statements. If not there’s something more terribly wrong with him.
Isn’t it for others to decide whether someone has “the courage and the judgment” to do something? At the very least it’s the height of narcissistic egotism to make that kind of statement about yourself – another reason this creep has no business occupying the Oval Office.
Prior to the 2004 election George W. Bush was asked directly “would you lose the election if it meant winning the war in Iraq?” and W patriotically replied “I’m going to win the election”.
Where was captain patriot then? Oh yeah campaigning for Mr. PartybeforeCountry.
The Maverick who ditches his stalwart wife for a hot heiress at the first opportunity, Character!
McAribus is doomed if this is best he can come up with.