John “Edwards” McCain
Filed under: 2008 elections, Feature — Michael van der Galien, Editor-in-Chief on January 31, 2008 @ 4:36 pm CET
The following quotes from last night’s debate are exactly what’s - economically at least - wrong with Senator John McCain. When I read this, I thought I was reading a speech given a Dutch Laborite, not by a member of the American Republican Party; and not just a member, but a member who could actually win that party’s nomination.
“I think that we’ve got to return to the principle that you don’t lend money that can’t pay it back. I think that there’s some greedy people on Wall Street that perhaps need to be punished.”
Me: what about the citizens who spent more than they should have spent? This isn’t just Wall Street, this is stupidity from Americans who refuse to take personal responsibility for their own spending. Unless someone forced them to borrow money they couldn’t repay, McCain’s line is idiotic, anti-business and Laborite-lite.
“I led the largest squadron in the United States Navy. And I did it out of patriotism, not for profit.”
McCain’s dismissive attitude towards the business class in last night’s debates as a collection of managers — signals a massively tin ear, especially among Republicans. Leading for patriotism is a wonderful motive. However, he got that opportunity because a lot of Americans who work hard for profits generate enough taxes to pay for the military and for the government that McCain has helped govern for a quarter-century. The people McCain wants to lead as President often lead for profit, and won’t appreciate the aspersion this phrase that McCain uses in every appearance casts on their own motives.
“I think he managed companies, and he bought, and he sold, and sometimes people lost their jobs. That’s the nature of that business.”
Me: he says that as if it’s a bad thing. Something horrible. McCain clearly doesn’t understand what it’s like to run a business or he does and he thinks it’s “dirty.” There’s nothing “dirty” about being a successful CEO. In fact, without successful CEO’s, McCain wouldn’t ‘earn’ (and I use this word loosely) half the money he ‘earns’ as a member of the Senate.
Thank you to Michelle Malkin who adds some quotes showing that McCain is many things, but a Reaganite isn’t one of them. Paul Mirengoff explains: “Self-control is an important quality in all leaders including political and business leaders. When presidents lack self-control their presidency often ends badly. Last night, John McCain showed very little self-control.”
I don’t see how I could ever hope McCain wins the presidency. I don’t consider him to be better, fiscally, than the Democratic candidates, in some ways even worse (he has no idea what he’s talking about with regards to the economy). Not only that, but he’s also an extremely dirty campaigner who doesn’t know how to hide his feelings from the public; which is especially a problem considering that he’s one bitter, aggressive, unstable character. The Democrats may not be happy with people who try to earn a grand profit, but HRC and BO don’t hate them either. McCain seems to truly despise those people.
Good choice Florida! Well done.
1 C Stanley
January 31, 2008 @ 4:53 pm CETEd Morrissey was right in that those comments reflect McCain’s tin ear toward the sentiments of the far right, but that’s about as far as I’d go. These comments were jabs at Romney, picking chinks in his armor on his strong suit, private sector economic experience. It certainly doesn’t mean he’s an economic populist or that he hates the investor/CEO class- although it does mean that he took a risk in dissing them in his attempt to diss Romney.
Plus of course, he showed that he’s still not making nice with the Rush Limbaugh wing of the party, and that’s a concern because he has to do it sooner or later. He’s got the lead and momentum at his back, but it looked to me like he was taking that too much for granted last night. It seemed his goal was just to coast, not make any gains last night- and overall, that’s probably the right strategy right now but with regard to soothing the ruffled feathers of the fiscal base, I don’t think he can waste any time on that.
2 C Stanley
January 31, 2008 @ 4:56 pm CETNow that’s absurd. Have you looked at the proposals of Hillary and Obama on domestic agenda? Any idea how much all of that will cost?
There’s absolutely no one on the Republican side who is proposing the kind of bloated spending that the Dems are.
3 Jason
January 31, 2008 @ 5:02 pm CETI disagree. The whole reason that the newspaper editors and political reporters love McCain and give him positive coverage is because he repeatedly and gratuitously goes out of his way to diss the economic and social conservatives that the media hates. Moving into the general election, McCain will probably dance with the one that brought him there and that means continuing to pander to elite opinion on the coasts that is contemptuous towards economic and social conservatives while figuring that those conservatives will vote for him anyway rather than see Hillary in the White House.
McCain’s frequent indulgence in gratuitous and snobbish slams against other conservatives is the biggest reason I keep running into reluctance to support him even in spite of the fact that I agree with him on most substantive issues (including immigration). McCain reminds me of the "cool kids" in school who perpetually mocked those they saw as their social inferiors. He comes across to me as arrogant, brittle, and anti-intellectual.
4 C Stanley
January 31, 2008 @ 5:13 pm CETYes, you could be right, Jason- and perhaps my ‘concern’ really is more like yours- not that he truly needs to make amends from a strategic perspective, but that I just personally don’t like him overdoing it and giving validation to the claims that he likes to stick it in the eye of the GOP establishment.
What are your thoughts on how far he needs to go with making amends though? He’s already backed off his immigration bill and promised he’ll secure the border first. What else? I’m guessing he’ll continue to find ways to reassure about SCOTUS picks. Will that be it, and will it be enough?
5 John Edwards » Blog Archive » John “Edwards” McCain
January 31, 2008 @ 5:29 pm CET[…] unknown wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptThe following quotes from last night’s debate are exactly what’s - economically at least - wrong with Senator John McCain. When I read this, I thought I was reading a speech given a Dutch Laborite, not by a member of the American … […]
6 John Edwards » Blog Archive » John “Edwards” McCain
January 31, 2008 @ 6:56 pm CET[…] Michael van der Galien wrote an interesting post today on John â
7 John Edwards » Blog Archive » John “Edwards” McCain [PoliGazette]
January 31, 2008 @ 7:01 pm CET[…] Join the Campaign to Change America / John Edwards ‘08 Blog wrote an interesting post today on John â
8 kranky kritter
January 31, 2008 @ 7:10 pm CETI was also pretty disappointed by McCain last night. And that’s from a guy who has favored Romney LEAST among the remaining 4 legit folks.McCain looked like an ignorant jerk to me, miles away from "always tell the truth." He was intentionally derisive towards Romney not just on economics but when he kept insisting on mischaracterizing Romney’s foreign policy statements, statements which were in point of fact pretty sensible ones.I used to like McCain so much I wrote him in the last 2 times (I live in MA, so the outcome wasn’t actually in any doubt either time). But he has obviously lost a couple steps, and the fact that he can smell the White House now has not made him a more appealing character, that’s for sure.The interesting question to me now is whether the strong disdain of some portion of the GOP core can still overcome his big current momentum.I think McCain had to have looked quite unappealing to many Republicans, but what percent of such folk were watching, and will be aware of his ugly performance?About that core. These folks sound to me like they think they own the party…Sean Hannity for example mouthpieces like that. But my growing sense is these folks who think they are the core either constitute a smaller core than they think they do, or that they are only part of the core. Sort of like that joke where the new guy in heaven asks St Peter what’s on the other side of the tall fence and SP says "oh, those are the catholics, they think they’re the only ones here."One more thing about Romney. As I said, he has been my least favorite from among the folks I viewed as having a legit shot. But last night he was the first one to do something I had been hoping for. He told us all something that most of us don’t want to hear. He said that SS, medicare, and medicaid entitlements were eating up a huge and growing portion of the fed budget, so quibbling over tweaks to the remainder was pretty pointless. He said that while seniors ought to be protected, folks 40 or so and under HAD to expect changes. This is something that is both objectively true and something I try not to think about too much because it has to leads to unpleasant changes.Now I am pretty sure that all 4 candidates left KNOW this. But Romney seems to me to be the first one courageous enough or stupid enough to mention it on national TV. Good for him.
9 kranky kritter
January 31, 2008 @ 7:12 pm CETOh, and if anyone can tell me why my posts are losing their paragraph breaks, I’d appreciate it. A hard return doesn’t seem to cut it. Do I need to use html, or what?
10 Jason
January 31, 2008 @ 7:21 pm CETIf you post before the Javascript box with the formatting buttons loads (sometimes it is slow), it will strip out all of your formatting, including paragraph breaks.
Make sure that the page reads "done" loading before submitting your comment.
11 Alan Stewart Carl
January 31, 2008 @ 7:31 pm CETMcCain had a bad debate (again). He’s not the best choice for fiscal conservatives (Romney is) but this post sounds more partisan than studied opinion. The title alone is laughable hyperbole. McCain is like Edwards how? Because he pointed out that some on Wall Street have abused the system? Some have. You rightly blame individuals for the credit crisis but there have been some awfully predatory lending practices put in place to artifically juice profit reports and increase stock prices. Is that what McCain meant? I dunno, he didn’t eleborate. But to compare that to Edwards’ protectionist, anti-corporate agenda makes it hard to take this post seriously.
McCain’s economic policy is no where near as leftist as Obama’s or Clinton’s and it’s not so out there as to disqualify him from consideration. I’m a solide economic conservative, I’ve looked at all of McCain’s proposals and I can live with it since he brings so much more to the table that Romney simply won’t bring.
12 Alan Stewart Carl
January 31, 2008 @ 7:33 pm CETI should say: since he brings so much more on issues outside the economy.
13 John Mccain » John “Edwards” McCain
January 31, 2008 @ 8:32 pm CET[…] Steve Shickles wrote an interesting post today on John â
14 Tap
January 31, 2008 @ 9:47 pm CET"…I just personally don’t like him overdoing it and giving validation to the claims that he likes to stick it in the eye of the GOP establishment."
But he does validate that claim on a daily basis, doesn’t he?
His statements show a rare (for a Republican) disdain for and weak understanding of the economic system that has made our country so successful.
His continued untruthful attack on Romney’s position on Iraq is positively Clintonesque. He’s counting on the uninformed not bothering to become informed, (which of course reflects reality with a sizable chunk of the voting public) and is courting that vote.
15 Michael van der Galien
January 31, 2008 @ 9:49 pm CETI agree with that. And it might work, indeed, because the masses are uninformed and too lazy to become informed.
16 redfish
February 1, 2008 @ 6:00 am CETWell, honestly, the oversensitive response to saying "patriotism over profit" shows how a lot of Republicans are "stuck" on their ideology. "Patriotism over profit" doesn’t mean profit is bad, it means it should never take precedence over patriotism. Its like people who quibble with the word ‘partisanship’ which means putting partisan concerns over principle, it doesn’t mean not fighting for your particular party’s principles.
17 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 3:20 pm CETAmen, redfish.
18 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 3:28 pm CETThere’s actually an irony here. McCain’s defense of his attack on Romney’s use of the word timetable was that he should have known better than to have said that because it was the buzzword for the antiwar Dems. The argument basically is not that Romney actually wanted to wave the white flag, but that he wasn’t strong enough in opposing the concept of timetables, to send the clear signal to the Dems that this should be off the table of the discussions. Note that in the original statement that McCain made, he said that Hillary wanted to wave the white flag and Romney talked about withdrawal. There was implied guilt by association because Romney dared to condone timetables in any way, shape or form, that meant that he was siding too much with those who want to surrender.
Well now we have McCain making a mild statement like "I did it for patriotism, not for profit," and Michael is exaggerating that by comparing him to John Edwards. It’s the same rhetorical tool- take a statement that has the slightest variance from the party line that everyone is supposed to regurgitate, and imply that making such a statement means that you’re siding with the enemy.
Have we completely lost our ability to see nuance? I think McCain’s wrong to use the timetable remark against Romney, but I see no difference in the way Michael is now treating McCain’s remarks.
19 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 3:32 pm CETOkay, I think I understand it now. I think some of you must be suffering from Battered Constituent Syndrome. If you are familiar with Battered Wife Syndrome, it may help you to understand your condition. You are just depressed and afraid to break away. You are worried that it will only be worse out there..but we can help you. You can do it!
Don’t get offended now…you know I’m joking
20 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 3:34 pm CETYes, Christine. You are exhibiting further symptoms…making excuses, minimalizing the attacks.
21 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 3:35 pm CETTap, I can take a joke so no worries there, but I honestly don’t get it. Who is the batterer that we’re afraid to break away from?
22 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 3:37 pm CETHow is it minimizing the attacks when I just said that I think McCain is wrong on this?
No, it’s Romney’s supporters who are minimizing the massive amount of negative campaigning that he’s doing, and the vicious attacks that are starting to come more and more from surrogates too (check out Ed Morrissey’s post about an e-mail smear going around now, trying to swiftboat McCain’s military record.)
I’m interested in holding everyone accountable for negative campaigning. Can you say the same?
23 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 3:38 pm CETWho is constantly attacking his own?
24 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 3:39 pm CETNo, I haven’t read Ed Morrissey today
25 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 3:42 pm CETWho are ‘his own’ though? If people within the party are wrong, then he’s right to attack them. Sometimes I’ve agreed with him (like when he said the Bush tax cuts should have been accompanied by spending cuts.) If you want to characterize that as battering, I simply disagree. I just don’t buy the narrative that John McCain lies awake at night dreaming up ways to torment Republicans. I’m not afraid of someone who sometimes takes a contrarian position and in fact I think the party actually needs that right now instead of an echo chamber. The fact that I haven’t always agreed with his contrarian positions doesn’t mean that I’m being battered- it’s just accepting the reality that different people can hold different views and still have a general sense of agreement on core ideology.
26 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 3:43 pm CETI’ll go check it out in a minute, but I don’t have a problem with ‘negative’ campaigning by the definition that is often used. It depends on what you mean. Democrats have a history of claiming that an ad by an opponent telling the truth about their record is negative campaigning…and media have backed them up on this. McCain has been doing this too.
Of course, I don’t excuse attack ads that are untruthful.
27 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 3:44 pm CETWell, Ed is supporting Romney but he has the integrity to also defend McCain when he’s wrongly attacked. I wish all of Romney’s supporters would take the high road like that; if your candidate is good enough, you don’t have to slant your coverage to make it seem that your guy is pure as driven snow and the other guy is Satan.
28 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 3:52 pm CET29 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 3:53 pm CETSo, you’ll join me in condemning Romney for themisleading ads he’s run about the McCain immigration bill?
Again, I condemn McCain’s use of Romney’s words about timetables out of context (and the fact that he knows very well that timetables is a buzzword, which will turn conservatives off if they believe that Romney supported them.)
Now it’s your turn; do you agree also that amnesty is such a buzzword too, and that Romney’s repeated use of that is an example of the same tactic? Particularly when the old Romney is on record saying that McCain’s proposal was NOT amnesty?
30 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 3:54 pm CETwhoops
31 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 3:55 pm CETHold on…my son needs something. I’ll get back to you in a bit.
32 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 3:56 pm CETNo, Tap, he said both of those things. It’s the people who are attacking him on this who are distorting by giving one part of his argument rather than all of his statements. He certainly did say that his opposition was partly due to the lack of spending restraint, and if you don’t believe it I’ll track down the transcripts or clips for you.
33 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 4:23 pm CETI’ve seen some both transcripts and clips in which he made no mention of spending restraint but did talk about ‘tax cuts for the rich’. And when asked that exact question in the debate the other night, if memory serves me correctly he didn’t deny it…
34 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 4:30 pm CETAs for the amnesty thing, no I don’t agree with you. I think it is McCain and those on his side of the debate who are trying to parse words. It was definitely McCain who was being secretive and deceptive on this issue, whether you agree with what he was doing or not.
35 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 4:35 pm CETI’m not denying that either- I’m just saying that it doesn’t prove that he didn’t ALSO oppose the tax cut package on the basis that there was no accompanying fiscal restraint on spending, shoring up the SS trust fund, etc. It’s clear when you look at his own proposals on taxes and the way he campaigned in 2000 that he just has different priorities, and that is not such a bad thing IMO since Bush and other current GOP leaders’ sole priorities have been in lockstep with Grover Norquist and Club for Growth.
One example of a priority on cuts that McCain has stressed is the need to address the AMT. He’s absolutely correct about that, and Congress just keeps putting off dealing with it by passing temporary patches.
McCain has also advocated a tax credit for families to apply toward health insurance; that’s a move I’d agree with too.
We have to get beyond the buzz words; it’s not just ‘did he say the right things or not?’ and ‘did he vote for or against tax cuts?’ or ‘did he vote with or against Bush?’ There’s a lot more complexity to the issues that gets lost in those discussions.
Frankly the Democrats are right to complain that the GOP ads against them often attack their record out of context (even if true, the votes are portrayed in a sinister manner without explanation of why the candidate voted one way or another.) And here we have two examples of GOP candidates doing that to each other: attacking based on votes or statements taken out of context.
36 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 4:40 pm CETI guess I can agree that Romney’s not parsing on that issue; I don’t think you could possibly parse together any pretense of consistency when your current position is 180 degrees from your past one. Romney’s own words as recently as 2005 argue against his current position, and he seems to just ignore that and hope no one notices. His campaign spokesperson responds to that by saying that people’s views on this have evolved; OK, even if I give you that much, there’s still no explanation of why he no longer thinks it’s impossible to deport 12 million people. I listened to him just the other night talking about allowing people time to pack up their things, let kids finish the school year, and then they’d have to leave. He said himself that that approach is impossible, and he was right- who is going to enforce that? It’s absurd, yet he doesn’t even give any explanation of a realistic plan and no one seems to be calling him on it so far.
37 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 4:41 pm CETOops, I meant to link to this.
38 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 4:55 pm CETYou are changing the subject…we weren’t talking about Romney’s stance on the immigration bill. Look, I’ve told you before that I’m not a big Romney fan. I’m not too interested in defending him. I suppose I should be, since I do prefer him to McCain, but he is more of a last resort choice for me than he is a first choice.
As far as holding the two candidates responsible for their positions on McCain’s immigration bill…they’ve both changed their stance, sure. But if you think McCain, who led the effort and who still is snotty when he speaks about it is not going to held accountable in a way that Romney is not, you kidding yourself.
39 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 5:04 pm CETNo, I do believe that and I’m not kidding myself. In fact I believe that the snottiness is a better indicator that he’ll be accountable than would a pandering remark. If he tried to pretend that he’s now had a heartfelt conversion on the border fence issue, I wouldn’t believe it. But what he’s clearly saying is that he sees the political reality- that his (and Bush’s) version of a comprehensive immigration package isn’t going to happen. He put everything he had into it and it failed- and he knows that the reason it failed is that the public doesn’t trust that working on the immigration reform process at the same time as the border enforcement will work; people feel they were promised before that enforcement would be in place but it never happened. So he sees that the trust isn’t there to handle it all at once so he has to now move his position to say that the fence will happen first and then the rest will be tackled after the border state governors certify their borders.
I do believe that- because he’s not pandering. It would be far less credible if he were pretending that this was his preference all along or trying to spin it. His change in position is because of political reality, and an expression of understanding of reality is a better indicator of a politician’s future actions than is a promise with a smile on your face that you’re heart and mind has been changed on the issue.
40 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 5:08 pm CETAnd I apologize- it wasn’t my intent to change the issue, I was just responding to your statement that "McCain was the one…" which I understood as a comparison to Romney. I do understand that you are more opposed to McCain than you are to Romney, but comparisons still matter, don’t they? I mean if you list a certain thing as one of the reasons you can’t support one candidate, then don’t you also have to apply the same standard to any other candidate?
41 Tap
February 1, 2008 @ 7:33 pm CETYou do have a good point with the credibility issue, and I’d agree that McCain’s statements on changing his stance due to political reality are certainly honest.
Romney does have a pandering type quality sometimes, I’ll agree to that, too. But the flip-flop meme doesn’t strike me as being too accurately applied. I don’t think he’s changed on so many more issue’s than McCain has…the charge of flip-flopping just sticks better because of the way he comes across when speaking.
McCain’s persona, on the other hand, comes across as if he crawled out of the cradle with the sure knowledge of how things should be.
42 C Stanley
February 1, 2008 @ 7:58 pm CETTap- you’re right about personal style (McCain is certainly stubborn, and comes across as arrogant.)
But for me the flip flopping label sticks with Romney not so much because of style, but because of timing and expediency of his position changes. Just has too much of a finger to the wind feel to it for me.
On the other hand, I’ve seen some folks who are backing him say that they know very well that his new positions are phony, but they believe he’ll now continue to pander to the base and can be trusted to do so because he pandered to the liberals in MA! And I can’t deny there’s some logic to that too- that even if he’s not a genuine believer, the political forces will keep him in line with the conservative base. In the end, I’ll have to hope that’s true too if he gets the nomination, because I do think he’s smart enough to ‘dance with the one who brung him’.