To Be Sure...

I was walking earlier today thinking to myself, "you know, say what you will about John McCain, but he'll almost certainly be a better President than George W. Bush so we have something to look forward to no matter what happens in America." Then I thought to myself that to write that up, you'd need to include the all-important to-be-sure sentence. Specifically, something like "if, that is, he manages to avoid any catastrophic new wars that lead to massive bloodshed."

Then you read something about how Michael Goldfarb is leaving The Weekly Standard's blog to go join the McCain campaign, and you recall that that's a giant to-be-sure. Some folks take comfort in the fact that up until 1998-99 or so McCain had reasonably reasonable views about foreign policy, but he's been way out in crazy-land for years now and all indications are that his administration will be staffed by neocons too fanatical or dim-witted to have served in the Bush administration and been discredited.

Comments

The McCain campaign seems to be based on the strategy of persuaded people with widely differing opinions that McCain really agrees with them, regardless of what he says now/said in the past. It will be interesting to see how well he pulls this off.

Posted by Richard Hershberger | June 2, 2008 10:10 AM

The problem really is that you have to look at both Bush and McCain in the context of when they took office. In abstract isolation, if McCain had become president in 2001, I think you could say that he would not have been as bad as Bush.

But the problem is that the starting point for the president in 2009 is now set to where Bush has left it. And from that perspective, it would be quite easy for someone to end up being even worse than Bush, since there are so many looming crisis' (Iraq, Iran, climate change, economy, etc), since so much of the expert machinery of government has been gutted, and since so many dangerous precedents have been set.

McCain may in a relative sense represent less bad change than Bush, but in an absolute sense the country could easily be much worse off in 2012 than it is today. And that matters quite a bit, and is a good reason not to look forward to a McCain presidency.

Posted by Will Hutchinson | June 2, 2008 10:11 AM

If elected it's almost a sure thing that McCain takes us to war in Iran. Bet on it. Everything points to that.

And at this stage, McCain is no longer even his own person; he is disturbingly controlled by his team of lobbyists / former Bush people/ neocons, etc.

In order to make his run for the presidency, McCain has had to become McCain Inc and sell what was left of his soul.

The McCain of 2008 is but a shadow of his former self. In fact, just as Bush was easily influenced by his advisors, it seems McCain is going the same way.

McCain has concluded that the way to victory for the GOP nomination as well as in the general is the same pathway walked by Bush.

Even in the general election, expect the same divide and conquer Rove strategy. Expect him to focus on a few key swing states.

The more the election goes on you will see McCain morph into Bush. It's the only template for victory the GOP knows, and McCain lacks the courage to try something different.

Posted by cm | June 2, 2008 10:23 AM

I was walking earlier today thinking to myself, "you know, say what you will about John McCain, but he'll almost certainly be a better President than George W. Bush so we have something to look forward to no matter what happens in America."

The next President is starting out in a much weaker position, so comparing the qualifications of a President from 2000-2008 and the qualifications of a President from 2008-2012 is a bit off. It's a different job now.

Posted by Matt Stoller | June 2, 2008 10:26 AM

Just "fanatical or dim-witted" would have been fine. Would it really kill you to read through your posts just once before hitting "publish?"

Posted by Adam Villani | June 2, 2008 10:29 AM

Check out Greenwald today. http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/06/02/goldfarb/index.html

Pam Hess, the UPI reporter who gave us this extremely moving and persuasive glimpse of the liberal case for the war in Iraq, asked if timetables for withdrawal "somehow infringe on the president's powers as commander in chief?" Mitchell's less than persuasive answer: "Congress is a coequal branch of government...the framers did not want to have one branch in charge of the government." True enough, but they sought an energetic executive with near dictatorial power in pursuing foreign policy and war. So no, the Constitution does not put Congress on an equal footing with the executive in matters of national security.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/04/senator_george_mitchell_on_ira.asp

Andrew Sullivan is yet again calling the president a "war criminal." This time in response to today's New York Times article revealing that the Bush administration has subjected terror suspects captured abroad to 'severe' and 'brutal' interrogations.

Sullivan has a history of trotting out the charge of "war criminal," sticking the label on George Tenet, Donald Rumsfeld, Pentagon counsel Jim Haynes, and Berkeley law prof John Yoo.

And for what? The Times indicts the Bush administration for exposing terrorists captured abroad to "head-slapping, simulated drowning and frigid temperatures." Boo hoo.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2007/10/war_crimes.asp

Disgusting piece of excrement.

Posted by sy | June 2, 2008 10:31 AM

War issues aside WTF does any Democrat think is going to happen to SCOTUS under a McCain administration? Goddamn to hell all Democrats aggitating for crossing over to vote for McCain. You people of fucking nuts. FUCKING NUTS! OK? Get it? You are insane. The composition of SCOTUS and all the lower courts and regulatory agencies dictating the rules governing how we live is critical. So no Matt, looking forward to McCain as at minimum a welcome respite from Dubya doesn't get it. Knock it the fuck off.

Posted by steve duncan | June 2, 2008 10:32 AM

As they will say outside a future historical exhibit (translated from the original Chinese):

"Most people know that the former United States of Ameirca was invaded and occupied by an international military force in order to stop the ravages of Mad John McCain, the Last President. But did you know that in many ways Mad John was merely extending the policies of his predecessor, George W. Bush? Come inside this exhibit and see the fascinating tale of 'Dubya: America's Penultimate President and Forgotten Disaster'."

Posted by DTM | June 2, 2008 10:36 AM

Last night I had the dubious pleasure of watching a Salon.com poster argue that John McCain was really only running to the right to please the party and win the nomination (never mind that he's clinched it), and that once he had the Presidency he'd be nice and moderate again. And, of course, his judicial appointees would be moderate or Congress wouldn't approve them.

And they call Obama supporters delusional. Ha!

Posted by Persia | June 2, 2008 10:53 AM

I think McCain is scary because some many people think he is a moderate. He isn't, but he has somehow managed to convince people he is. That gives him a lot more leverage than a partisan like Bush.

Posted by bperk | June 2, 2008 10:54 AM

Matt,

Something even scarier: David Adesnik is on the scene:

I started working as a full-time volunteer on the foreign policy and national security staff for McCain 2008. I've taken a leave of absence from day job so that I can work a lot more hours for a lot less pay. (Just more proof that I'm an irrational, impractical, delusional ideologue.)

Who am I to argue with him?

Posted by Randy Paul | June 2, 2008 11:29 AM

Matt,

Something even scarier: David Adesnik is on the scene:

I started working as a full-time volunteer on the foreign policy and national security staff for McCain 2008. I've taken a leave of absence from day job so that I can work a lot more hours for a lot less pay. (Just more proof that I'm an irrational, impractical, delusional ideologue.)

Who am I to argue with him?

Posted by Randy Paul | June 2, 2008 11:33 AM

John McCain is a great American. He has been a POW. He will protect America from her enemies.
John McCain will stay in Iraq for 100 years. It will take that long to find the WMDs. John McCain will never negotiate. John McCain will bomb Iran if necessary. John McCain wil confront North Korea. John McCain is suspicious of Canada. Even now, Canadians are sneaking across our borders armed with hockey sticks. Ottawa, be warned. Only Lou Dobbs and Pat Buchanan stand between us and total chaos. John McCain is not short. John McCain is not senile. John McCain is a very young 72. He has more vigor than Bob Dole ... or Phyllis Diller. He takes vitamin supplements that give him the energy of a 60 year old. John McCain does not use his walker in public. John McCain does not have a temper. He forgets things sometimes (like the difference between a Sunni and Shia) and that makes him irritable. John McCain's constitution is fine. He drinks muslix every morning. He does not suffer from irregularity. John McCain was tortured as a POW for 5 and a half years. The least we can do is tolerate four years of his presidency.

Posted by jeer9 | June 2, 2008 11:45 AM

He's not going as a foreign policy adviser, though, but, as the first sentence in the linked announcement states, to "serve as deputy communications director."

Posted by James Joyner | June 2, 2008 11:59 AM

It's hard not to be skeptical of John McCain's foreign policy judgment ("Bomb, bomb, bomb...Bomb, bomb Iran"). Plus, there's the "Lieberman" factor -- and the possibility of having him in charge of the choir is scary as hell.

Posted by eric | June 2, 2008 12:12 PM

Greenwald's post today says all that needs to be said about Goldfarb's new job.

If by some miracle there's a Obama-McCain debate this fall moderated by a real, principled journalist, he or she should ask McCain how he, as a former POW who was tortured, can employ someone who thinks various forms of torture are so unworthy of concern that they deserve only a sarcastic "boo hoo". Is torture acceptable as long as the tortured is not an American?

Posted by tinisoli | June 2, 2008 12:44 PM

That Michael Goldfarb looks like Big Boy.

Posted by Frank | June 2, 2008 12:59 PM

Matthew, you just summed up what we've all known for a long time now about McCain and his dependency on right-wing backers in this election. Why are people generally so slow to pick up on this point? This is the WHOLE point of this election - and I don't mean from a liberal pantywaist point of view, either.

The whole point is McCain's dependency on these egg-headed sociopaths, the Neo-Cons. The guy has no brain of his own, ESPECIALLY on foreign policy, but everyone is afraid to call him on it lest, as Obama experienced recently, they be excoriated by the "how dare you I'm a former POW" line of attack, which the press will dutifully report and not question (lest they, in turn, be exposed as liberal twits).

Besides, as McCain knows, the egg-heads have nowhere else to go if the Republicans leave the White House. Their "knowledge" and experience are no good in an America whose executive branch is even a tiny bit better behaved than at present. For this reason alone, McCain is the only perfect Republican candidate. The danger is so easy to see that it's almost invisible.

Posted by TK | June 2, 2008 1:56 PM

TK says "...everyone is afraid to call him on it lest, as Obama experienced recently, they be excoriated by the "how dare you I'm a former POW" line of attack, which the press will dutifully report and not question (lest they, in turn, be exposed as liberal twits)."

I've been watching the McClellan backlash/media 'analysis' and have been just sickened by the unwillingness of reporters to accept Scott's depiction of much of the media as incurious lapdogs, unwilling to challenge and examine the right's assertions.

Martha Raddits had the temerirty to say on Washington Week Friday "we went at him (McClellan) pretty hard". As if that excuses the media from years of jingoistic support of the drumbeat and execution of the sloppy and misguided war, all while cowed by smears of being "unpatriotic" if anything was hard-hitting or raised objections.

Expect much more of this "I'm the patriot hero POW, I know all and you are a hammas sypathiser/mid-east appeaser/wimpy leftist" if McCain wins.

Posted by Ralph W | June 2, 2008 2:57 PM

John McCain is the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life.

Posted by croatoan | June 2, 2008 3:47 PM

Croatoan,

Hey! I resent that!

Posted by Raymond Shaw | June 2, 2008 4:35 PM

As someone who knew Mike Goldfarb in college very well, it pains me to see that he's turned into such a vile person. At Princeton he was always a gentleman, was a great boyfriend to Hilary (who's now his wife), was an intellectual, was into the rave scene (and *all* that entails). His jump off the deep end is truly bizarre. I think he's someone for whom 9/11 (and a paycheck from certain right wing publications) truly changed everything. Something snapped in his head, such that intellectual honesty and gentleman's honor could be sacrificed "to save America from certain doom."

[sigh]

Posted by gfw | June 2, 2008 4:57 PM