As Mark Kleiman says, I think the American electorate wouldn't like John McCain when he's angry.
« Unity Reconsidered | Main | Parsley »
Anger Management
23 May 2008 10:03 am
Comments (38)
Thing is, I believe McCain won't just use this angry spittle-flecked rhetoric as an occasional spice to his campaign. The general election hasn't begun and he's already blown up in print.
Very rare flashes of anger: fine. Rageaholic: electoral loser.
I don't know. I always kind of thought that Kerry responding to Bush-Cheney in that manner would've been pretty effective.
As cynical as I am about human nature, I think most people are capable of understanding when an angry response is appropriate, and when it isn't. Kerry had some legitimate thingsto get angry about; in this case, at least, McCain didn't.
How to Beat John McCain in Three Easy Steps:
1. Make him lose his temper.
2. Make him lose his temper.
3. Make him lose his temper.
Years ago, Richard Pryor had a standup routine in which he described becoming completely irrational and unhinged when arguing with his girlfriend:
And the madder you get, the calmer she gets!
Obama seems to have the mental agility, careful articulation and preternatural calm to pull this same thing off live, in real time. He can push McCain's buttons at will in a live debate, if he chooses to go that route. We would all see the spittle fly -- and in HD, to boot.
The McCain campaign's knee-jerk, over-the-top responses over the last few days to relatively innocuous criticism by Obama suggests that hot-headdedness is not just an personal attribute of the candidate, but of his entire campaign. Obama famously said some time ago, when asked how he, as a relatively young and inexperienced candidate would govern, "you look how I run my campaign -- that's how I'll run my White House." If the way one runs a cmapaign is indeed an insight into the way one governs, that might give anyone pause about a McCain presidency.
I get the feeling that Obama is going to be all over McCain like a pesky defensive stopper - ala Bowen for San Antonio. Up in his face, in his jersey, clutching, grabbing, giving him no room to move - and McCain is not going to handle it very well.
This can only be effective if it is publicized. And since McCain's base in the media have not been doing that (not on front pages of CNN or MSNBC's websites that I have seen), it hasn't affected his public image at all.
and McCain is not going to handle it very well.
McCain:(after being drawn by Obama) Pretty nifty move, Osama. Where'd you learn that? at your madrassa?
You'd have to be an idiot to think it "helps" the troops to vote against giving them money to go to college, which is exactly what McCain is saying. I guess he thinks the American population is basically a bunch of morons. On November 6, I guess we'll find out...
I disagree with you on this, Matt. Sen. Obama said, “There are many issues that lend themselves to partisan posturing, but giving our veterans the chance to go to college should not be one of them.” To ascribe to Sen. McCain partisan motivations is to impugn his motives and is not, I think, accurate. McCain may have anger issues, but I don’t think some measure of anger in this case is unwarranted.
I agree with the posters above. Obama and the Dems in general are going to tweak and prod McCain. They're going to push his own words back at him like the 100 years comment. He won't be able to wave his hand and make it go away. It will be relentless.
I think McCain will blow his cork time and time again. And just wait until he starts taking hits in the debates. I heard there will be 3. I doubt he can keep his cool when he is called a Bush loyalist, a flip-flopper, and a liar (in a politically correct manner, of course) time and time again on national TV.
Fascinating to watch Obama (aka "the young man") play rope-a-dope.
But I really want to know: Why is McCain so angry? What's he angry about? This man seems angry all the time...
I get the feeling that Obama is going to be all over McCain like a pesky defensive stopper - ala Bowen for San Antonio. Up in his face, in his jersey, clutching, grabbing, giving him no room to move
Is he also going to whine and bitch every time one of the moderators asks a question he doesn't like? Forget it, I'd rather have a candidate that can play some offense.
I disagree. McCain's response was disjointed but appropriate. Obama went after him on the Senate floor when McCain wasn't there to defend himself. Now it's read into the Senate record without a McCain response. I consider that a cheap shot. What Obama said was appropriate for a campaign event, but not for the floor of the Senate.
Also, Obama is beginning to telegraph his punches a bit, which, as an Obama supporter, is worrisome. Every time he starts a sentence off with "I respect McCain's service", we all know what's coming next. Predictable punches will eventually lead to effective counterpunching by McCain. Obama needs to come up with compliments after that lead in line which illustrate their policy differences succinctly. Something like:
"I respect Senator McCain's service to this country. I also respect his historical support for veterans benefits. It is precisely for these reasons that his support for this bill is essential, to ensure we have enough votes to override a likely Presidential veto by Mr. Bush. I believe the men and women of our armed forces have earned the benefits set forth in this bill, and although Senator McCain currently does not support this bill, I look forward to convincing him of the merits of this bill, so that he can lend his gravitas to override President Bush's likely rejection of it."
By saying it like this Obama does not sound superficialy by stating "he respects McCain's past service" etc. etc.
There's definitely no room for complacency, but...McCain's most likely going to lose this election, and he will really really deserve the loss. He stands for nothing at all. Unlike some, I don't see McCain as tragic - a tragic figure has to be more solidly sympathetic. Military background can be a character asset, but it can also be a character detriment, as it is in McCain's case. He's a CYA-type - the worst of the military, rather than the best. Goldwater himself saw it.
Here's why he will lose: 1.) He's a poor candidate. And the press will not, or will not be able to, cover for him forever. 2.) Despite what Blumenthal says, enough voters will associate him with Bush to make a vital difference. 3.) The GOP itself is in serious disarray. 4.) Barr, if he wins the LP nomination (not a foregone conclusion) will hurt McCain.
It's not going to be a landslide for Obama, because even people who don't actually like McCain that much will vote for him precisely to avoid a such a mandate - a defacto protest vote. But, barring something completely unforseen, he's going to lose, and will throughly deserve the loss. Just wait till the General revs up...
The thing is, I doubt McCain wrote this. What is really troubling for this campaign is that so many of those around him (look at that Newsweek memo) share this ultra-combative, condescending view towards Obama. This isn't spur-of-the-moment vitriol, but strategy to paint Obama as a callow, partisan, neophyte. It strikes me as pretty tone deaf.
p.s. Jeff Davis is a dick.
Jason, I'll grant you that Obama was unfair in ascribing McCain's stance to partisan posturing.
Still, McCain blowing his cool with that statement was not a pretty sight. Why not set himself apart from Obama and lay off the ad hominem attacks?
(BTW, this looks like something Mark Salter would write.)
Yeah, that Mark Kleiman is clever. He's right to note that Obama isn't stupid, and thus wouldn't note that John McCain's family has a long history of service to the US, and that McCain didn't need the GI Bill because he went to a service academy and didn't use the VA when he returned from Vietnam with debilitating injuries because he continued in active service, even though it was after Vietnam and before Iraq, when Obama declined to serve. How incredibly fortunate for McCain, to have taken advantage of those opportunites.
What the fuck is wrong with Mark Kleiman?
Obama went after him on the Senate floor when McCain wasn't there to defend himself.
Umm, yeah. That was part of the problem. McCain was bravely raising money instead of "supporting the troops" by showing up to vote. If McCain wants to be there to respond, maybe he should, ya know, show up to respond. Everyone else was there except for Kennedy and Coburn.
p.s. Jeff Davis is a dick.
Two things:
1) I don't think you understood the point of my post.
2) At least, I use my real name and don't insult people from the protection of anonymity.
To ascribe to Sen. McCain partisan motivations is to impugn his motives and is not, I think, accurate.
While that MAY be true, you should read the run-down on Obsidian Wings of McCain's votes on veteran's bills.
Then compare it to his statement that "I take a backseat to no one in my affection, respect and devotion to veterans."
After reading through the list of his actual votes, I think McCain's words are bulls***. He's just another "support the troops" Republican; all talk and no action. He's rather support tax cuts than give veterans what they've earned.
Jeffrey Davis: My bad. There have been so many trolls out lately I reacted a little too quickly. I feel a bit like McCain today. My apologies.
--Ned Hamond
Obama went after him on the Senate floor when McCain wasn't there to defend himself. Now it's read into the Senate record without a McCain response. I consider that a cheap shot.,/i>
Oh come on. Cheap shot? Poor McCain, not physically on the Senate floor to defend himself! Give me a break. And, BTW, where the fuck was he? Oh yeah, a fund raiser. There were only three Senators not present for that vote, I believe. Kennedy has a pretty good excuse. Coburn was at a funeral.
You know what really *is* a cheap shot, Jeremy? Being a concern troll. There's nothing wrong with your supporting McCain. Just be honest about it.
Old Man yells at cloud.
http://www.simpsoncrazy.com/gallery/image.php?image=screenshots/lists/news_198.jpg
LFC,
I checked out the Hilzoy piece to which you linked. While it doesn’t prove “partisan” motives, it does open Sen. McCain to further criticism for how much he is really prepared to do on behalf of America’s veterans. He should certainly be asked why he voted that way in so many cases.
Ned,
Thanks. The net's probably a bad place to try to mimic (in a mocking way) another's voice.
In fact, the McCain camp's note in rejecting Hagee brought up Obama's relationship with Wright in a Pecksniffian two-faced way. Which is what inspired my original post. McCain when stung will go as nasty as Rove can imagine.
Obama declined to serve
Thomas,
In what conflict(s) did Obama decline to serve? He turned 14 three months after the Vietnam war ended. Were there other conflicts in which he should have been expected to serve?
Jeremy wrote:
> Obama went after him on the Senate floor
> when McCain wasn't there to defend himself.
With all due respect, on this particular vote, McCain's choice to attend a fund-raiser instead is itself worthy of debate. And by "debate," I mean full-bore criticism.
Seriously -- McCain's entire public persona is as a Straight-Talk-Express, calls-'em-like-he-sees-'em kinda guy. Apart from that, there's not much to distinguish him from the current administration on actual policies. But Senator McCain's public image as a brave and principled legislator doesn't really square with his missing the vote yesterday; 97 other senators managed to find time in their schedules to vote. Obama has gotten slammed pretty hard for voting "present" on numerous pieces of legislation in the Illinois Senate. There may be some justification in that, but at least he was, you know, present.
Jeremy wrote:
> Obama went after him on the Senate floor
> when McCain wasn't there to defend himself.
With all due respect, on this particular vote, McCain's choice to attend a fund-raiser instead is itself worthy of debate. And by "debate," I mean full-bore criticism.
Seriously -- McCain's entire public persona is as a Straight-Talk-Express, calls-'em-like-he-sees-'em kinda guy. Apart from that, there's not much to distinguish him from the current administration on actual policies. But Senator McCain's public image as a brave and principled legislator doesn't really square with his missing the vote yesterday; 97 other senators managed to find time in their schedules to vote. Obama has gotten slammed pretty hard for voting "present" on numerous pieces of legislation in the Illinois Senate. There may be some justification in that, but at least he was, you know, present.
As I linked above from Obsidian Wings, look at McCain's voting record. It's not a cheap shot. It's a valid question. Why has McCain been against the expansion of veteran's benefits? Why did he vote to privatize them?
Jeremy suggested that Obama say something like "I also respect his historical support for veterans benefits", but I don't see that historical support. Where's the beef? Words don't trump votes.
I think Obama should continue to harp on McCain's votes concerning veterans while lauding his service. He needs to put McCain on the defensive about his voting record for veterans. The dichotomy is a valid campaign issue.
drjim, Obama declined to serve in the military. You and Barry and Mark may not know this, but we have troops serving every day, even when we're not at war.
drjim, Obama declined to serve in the military. You and Barry and Mark may not know this, but we have troops serving every day, even when we're not at war.
I can't speak for Barry (I assume you mean Obama) or Mark, but I was in fact aware that the United States has a standing military. I guess my question is that if John McCain knows so much about the military (obviously having served) why he didn't show up to vote on Sentor Webb's GI bill. If he thought the bill was wrong on the merits, wouldn't a credible expert such as John McCain want to be there to convince the world's greatest deliberative body about why Webb's bill was bad, and McCain's alternative was better? It seems that Senator McCain chose instead to attend a fundraiser for his Presidential campaign. In this decision, John McCain abdicated his duty as a US Senator, while Barack Obama fulfilled his.
Do you serve in the military Thomas?
Thomas, many of us with family members who served in the military associate serving in the military with being in for a short time and then doing other things with their lives, usually getting more education or starting small businesses. Thus, the expansion of the GI Bill back to what our friends and families had taken advantage of makes perfect sense to us. It is only politicians like John McCain who went from career military into politics who aren't really in touch with this reality of American life that most of the rest of us are familiar with. It's not surprising that he's fairly unsympathetic to Webb's proposal. What is surprising is that he is not even aware how ridiculous he's acting with his opposition and his public tantrum over being called out about it.
It's fairly amusing to see that Obama realizes this about McCain and is able to bait him into these outbursts.
Also, if McCain didn't want to suffer the indignity of being called out for his opposition to the bill on the floor of the Senate while he wasn't there to answer for himself, then he should have shown up. The fact that he wasn't there to answer Obama is his own fault, not Obama's. Pretty weak of him to blame someone else for his own failings, and pretty pathetic of his supporters not start making excuses for him. I don't understand why Thomas isn't expressing disappointment in how his favored politician has let him down rather than lashing out at McCain's opponent. Just goes to show how pathetically brainwashed and in the tank Thomas is over McCain. But it's not MY fault THomas has chosen to back an inferior person for president.
LFP and Andy:
I have no problem with Obama saying what he said, I just don't think the Senate floor is the appropriate place to say it (perhaps the words "cheap shot" were too strong - I should have just stuck with "inappropriate time and place" for such comments). All presidential candidates are going to miss dozens of votes; obviously McCain missing this particular vote was politically expedient for him (since he doesn't have to vote against a popular bipartisan bill); just saying Obama should have waited to make that point.
Also, the exact wording of my suggested talking point can and should be massaged; if you just take out the line regarding "historical" McCain, and keep the rest of the language, I think it gets to the same place. The point I was trying to make is that if every time Obama uses the lead in "I respect his service" is followed with a statement whacking McCain, that lead in loses its value and seems phony. Obama should mix it up a bit, and every so often re-phrase an potential attack line so that it doesn't sound like an attack line, without losing effectiveness. McCain's over-reaction will look even stupider.
Tyro, is this more of the new Democrat criticism of McCain for devoting too much time to service in the US military? Should he have checked out of the Hanoi Hilton early?
It's pretty clear that McCain is familiar with people serving for a short term. He thinks that too much of that can be a problem, and wants to incentivize people to serve longer.
If you want to know why folks like Barry and Mark are so excited about this, it's because it's in their own direct personal financial interest. Benefits have been provided on a lump sump basis, and they haven't kept up with higher education costs. The Webb bill raises that to whatever the most expensive public university in the state charges. So folks like Mark and Barry will benefit from lots of cash being thrown at them. If Barry and Webb really wanted to help with college expenses, they'd legislate a cap on tuition. (Don't tell me that price controls don't work; you're Democrats here.)
Thomas, not my fault that McCain is out of touch with civilian culture who is unable to understand why someone WOULDN'T want to make a career out of the military, since that's what he considers "normal." It's your fault for endorsing such a candidate who advocates such stupid policies, which is a reflection of your own poor judgment and moral shortcomings.
Bonus points for imitating the loser candidate you're following by retreating to the "Hanoi Hilton defense" that McCain resorts to when he has to defend his worthless heatlh care ideas, too. A sign that you're not just defending this loser-candidate, you're becoming more like him. Not good, Thomas, not good.
Tyro, what exactly is wrong with making a career out of military service? I know that most don't, and the system is set up for that, but I've never seen it suggested that there was something wrong or abnormal about making a career there. As it happens, the military needs some individuals to make a career there; far from being a stupid policy, it's an absolute necessity.
Bonus points for you for mindlessly repeating the slurs coming from phonies like Harkin. The rest of us can respect McCain's service without necessarily agreeing with everything he says. There's nothing dishonorable about McCain's service. There's plenty dishonorable about the current Democrat tactic of maligning his service.
I've never seen it suggested that there was something wrong or abnormal about making a career [in the military].
Yes, and you still haven't. Did Tyro suggest that? No. Did I suggest that? No. Did anyone? No.
I like a good debate, but this isn't one. Standing up endless rows of strawmen indicates that the debater can't defend his position.
Comments closed June 06, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
I don't know. I always kind of thought that Kerry responding to Bush-Cheney in that manner would've been pretty effective.
Posted by mark f | May 23, 2008 10:21 AM