McCain Watch

John Judis continues his efforts to convince me that John McCain may not be the psychotic neoconservative on national security issues that he appears to be, by noting that he has a long time proclivity for suggesting that someone like James Baker or Brent Scowcroft might make a good envoy to try to re-start negotiations between Israel and the Palestinians. Later, McCain qualifies that to say he "would appoint someone to go to the region who was well regarded: Scowcroft, Baker, Kissinger, George Mitchell, Tony Zinni, Bill Kristol, Randy Scheunemann." Scowcroft, Baker, Kissinger, Mitchell, and Zinni would all be good choices. Scheunemann would be silly, and Kristol would be absurd. Judis remarks:

McCain clearly did acknowledge recommending Scowcroft and Baker as his negotiators. In grouping them subsequently with Bill Kristol (the editor of The Weekly Standard) and former campaign aide Randy Scheunemann--neither of whom have had significant diplomatic experience or enjoy high regard in Arab capitals--McCain appeared to be grasping desperately for a way to undermine the significance of his own statement. What really happened in Brussels will probably always be shrouded in doubt, but there is some reason to believe that McCain, faced with a foreign reporter, did temporarily let down his guard and reveal that, on U.S. policy toward Israel, he is closer to George H.W. Bush than to George W. Bush. And that's not a bad thing at all.

That's one interpretation. Another, of course, would be that McCain is seriously confused, doesn't understand this issue at all, and is just thrashing around saying things that don't make sense.

Comments

Wow, Judis is really grasping at straws here. It's almost a replay of what passed for conventional wisdom in some circles about W at the end of Clinton's administration--oh, surely Bush will be just like his father, and that'll be better for the Palestinians than Clinton. Um, whoops?

Not that I think McCain would actually be *worse* for the Palestinians than GW Bush; that would be quite a task for any successor to pull off. But the most one should realistically expect on this front from a McCain presidency would be that he might not marginalize the issue as much as Bush has, in terms of how much effort the US puts into it.

Posted by Haggai | October 25, 2006 9:40 AM

But one has to appeal to the psychotically paranoid and cruel to get traction in the Republican primaries. It may help some to actually BE psychotic, but McCain has to at least put on a show of it.

This is why the nation is screwed -- about 35% of the population believes in "strength through cruelty". It shows in so many places and ways.

Posted by Robert the Red | October 25, 2006 9:53 AM

we don't need to call matthew's characterization of McCain an "interpretation:" it's a fact. He talks tough, and he doesn't think deeply.

and if judis doesn't understand this, he should take a timeout, sit quietly in the corner, and consider his own enabling behavior.

Posted by howard | October 25, 2006 10:46 AM

In my view, if you want to know what McCain is thinking in regard to foreign policy, read the Bull Moose.

Shorter Bull Moose: "The American public loves cowboy/maverick, so if a candidate wants to get elected, he better at least fake it."

I think he's unfortunately right. Of course, my concern about that is that you'd better be ready to live up to your rhetoric, and further, to some degree people believe what they are told by their leaders, and the last thing we need is to give the public *more* of an appetite for military intervention.

Posted by Chuck | October 25, 2006 11:20 AM

I would guess that he's just being nice to Kristol, who has been one of his staunchest backers. Still, a terrible idea.

Posted by Blake Hounshell | October 25, 2006 11:45 AM

If McCain said anything crazy, it was just to pacify his base or project strength. If it wasn't quite crazy, it shows he's a no-nonsense, tough guy. If it was reasonable it shows he can unite the country.

Can I have a TV show now?

Posted by Njorl | October 25, 2006 1:42 PM

This is all of a piece with McCain's tendency to say he would solve problems by calling someone else and telling him to straighten things out. The "how?" part gets buried under steely resolve and straight, if directionless, talk. He's run this scam before. Doesn't anyone call him on it? It's not that hard; even Don Imus had St. John scrambling with a few not very hard questions the other day.

Posted by CJColucci | October 25, 2006 4:10 PM

Kristol is so wacked a name to pull out that I think there's a good chance McCain actually meant to say Bill Cohen, Clinton's Republican secdef.

At least, Cohen's name wouldn't be as out of place.

Posted by Jon H | October 25, 2006 4:50 PM

Please, y'all're reading too much into this (per usual). McCain's just trying to cover his arse with a wide range of people. That's it, that's all. (One presumes he's still neocon's kind of guy--now more for convenience than anything else--but that's another issue.)

Posted by something polish | October 25, 2006 8:04 PM