The Good Soldier
| Wed Aug. 27, 2008 10:13 PM PDT
THE GOOD SOLDIER....Jon Chait on Biden's speech:
What continues to be missing is a frame to explain why John McCain believes all these wrongheaded things he talks about. But it's very simple. McCain used to stand against the ideologues and moneyed interests of the GOP, but he decided that if he wanted to win the GOP nomination, he had to make himself their ally. I suspect Democrats will regret this when Republicans tear Barack Obama's character apart next week.
Amy Sullivan expands on this a bit:
A number of speakers have made reference to their personal friendship with John McCain, carefully noting how much they admire him, before going on to criticize him. And that's effective to a point — "more in sorrow than in anger" plays differently than straight-on attacks.
But Democrats might find it would be more effective if they explained why they're so disappointed with their friend John McCain. How did this great guy they admire so much became a candidate whose positions appall them? It wasn't a fluke, it wasn't like he had a personality transplant. And the answer would seem to fit perfectly into a powerful Democratic narrative. John McCain changed because that's what he had to do to win the Republican nomination. That's what the reigning conservative ideology and interests demanded of him.
Right. It's what Biden was getting at when he said, "These times require more than a good soldier, they require a wise leader." It's a good line, but too subtle. The expanded version is that McCain has had to prostrate himself to the neocons, the theocons, and the moneycons because that's what it takes to win the Republican nomination these days: you have to be a good soldier. And one way or another that's a story that the Democrats need to tell. A laundry list of flip-flops doesn't make an impression unless you explain what's behind it.
It's also why I liked the passage from Bill Clinton's speech that I highlighted yesterday. He didn't just tie McCain to George Bush, he tied him directly to the full range of contemporary right-wing dogma. That's what Obama needs to do too. In some simple way, he needs to make people understand that all the stuff they don't like about the past eight years isn't just the fault of one guy's idiosyncrasies, it's the fault of an entire worldview. And if you elect McCain, you're electing that worldview too.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Unlike many posters here, I'm not convinced McCain is a war-mongering antichrist. I don't like his politics and won't vote for him, but I see McCain a bit like I saw Bob Dole in his run. I have great respect for Dole (more than for McCain), but Dole caved to the Republican campaign machine and party ideologues. He thought he had to give up being Bob Dole to win. Which is a big reason he lost.
Good post, Kevin. It would be nice if, for once, some of the messaging and advertising would emphasize the big picture, contrasting Republican policies and outcomes with those of the previous Democratic administration, a la Bill Clinton's speech.
That kind of campaign would give us "Destination Democrat" focus. That's a good foundation for not only the presidential campaign but for every Congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislative race.
I would love to see more of Bill Clinton's message out there between now and November.
I think another reason a lot of the people are emphasizing their friendship with McCain is that, given his temper, they fear him losing (or winning) and returning to Washington after the election to wreak vengeance on all who crossed his path during the election. I can easily see him becoming President and vetoing everything that Obama and Biden touch legistlatively, purely as a personal vendetta against them for standing in his way.
Another vision that comes to mind along these lines is of a President-elect John McCain morphing into "Johnzilla" and stomping through the landscape of Washington, biting off the heads of Biden and Obama. Or at least until Biden also morphs into "Joethra", defending the innocent citizens of Washington. (I seem to recall, after all, the original Godzilla and Mothra characters talking about how they were personal friends during their legislative days together. And in fact, I think Mothra evolved into his most famous manifestation to shorten the trips back-and-forth from Washington to Delaware. This is all from memory though, and I'm lacking a citation here, though, so this may all be slightly inaccurate.)
Submitted by TangoMan (not verified) on Thu Aug. 28, 2008 2:02 AM PDT.
John McCain changed because that's what he had to do to win the Republican nomination. That's what the reigning conservative ideology and interests demanded of him.
Are Chait and Sullivan blind to the fact that the same reasoning applies to Obama? Either he is a moderate fellow or he is a Black Radical. He had to join his Church, affiliate with terrorists and con-men, all in order to advance in the Democratic machine. To paraphrase Sullivan, "That's what the reigning liberal ideology and interests demanded of Obama."
Submitted by Gaucho Politico (not verified) on Thu Aug. 28, 2008 2:08 AM PDT.
You can feel the dems edging around the main point but just staying outside. The main point is the synthesis of the Kerry and Clinton and Biden speeches. McCain is a candidate who has sold out everything he ever believed in to win the nomination of a party whose world view has brought us the last eight abysmal years. It was his choice to abandon truth in pursuit of power. He embraced a demonstrably disastrous and discredited world view for power. Its not only cynical and pathetic its dangerous. What would a man willing to sell his soul for power do in office?
Submitted by Fargus (not verified) on Thu Aug. 28, 2008 4:02 AM PDT.
Kerry's speech, about the differences between "Senator McCain" and "Candidate McCain," did exactly this. I agree, we should see more of it, but it's not like it's not out there in any form.
How can America expect John McCain to lead our country when he does not lead his own party? Each time he has stood on principle against republicans (global warming, torture, tax cuts) he has been unable to shake their intractability. Now he is shifting his own resolve on many of these issues. McCain has had many chances to win over members of his own party and he has repeatedly failed. He could not win the hearts and minds of his own fellow republicans. Not the leadership we need.
Petey has gotten this dead right. Clinton framed the issues that divide the Democrats from the still rightward tilting Republican Party in a way that Obama never has. Several of my friends who are the biggest Obama supporters are also people who were attracted to Reagan a generation ago. Clinton is anathema to them because he won't let them off the hook with this post partisan crap. He just says it - the conservative philosophy that Reagan and his ilk believed came to fruition with Dubya and it has been a disaster. The Democrats failure has not been because they were too partisan, it was because they were too weak.
Judging from the crowd last night, they agree a lot more with Clinton than with the post-partisans (see Mark Warner).
In some simple way, he needs to make people understand that all the stuff they don't like about the past eight years isn't just the fault of one guy's idiosyncrasies, it's the fault of an entire worldview. And if you elect McCain, you're electing that worldview too.
Posted by Kevin Drum
Wrong. That's the way a liberal policy wonk comes at it; it's not the way voters come at it. All Obama has to do is convince voters that "all the stuff they don't like about the past eight years" they will get again with McCain.
He and Biden don't have to attribute any of it to a "faulty word view." Bill Clinton has the luxury of talking in terms of "world view" and rejecting "post partisanship" because he's not running for anything.
Over the years, I have repeatedly told folks -- educated and not -- that the repugs have a corrupt and counterproductive "world view." I'm met with a blank stare -- until I translate that concretely into the misery that their policies have produced.
Folks who are poor, homeless, jobless, with no health insurance, who can't send their kids to college don't give a big rat's ass about a politician's "world view." They want to punish those that did them wrong and reward those who will do right by them.
Clearly the Republicans are most vulnerable on the economy.
Still, I'm really shocked that we're not hitting them hard on a broader range of stuff, especially Katrina and torture.
Bill mentioned both of these, but has anyone else?
And what about the COST of the war, in both lives and dollars? Has anyone made a big issue of that?
Media wants you to think that Dems Convention was a bust (no red meat) however, what the Dems did accomplish and which is stronger than all the meat in the world is UNITY, because a house divided cannot stand! Make no mistake about it. A united group is Powerful,Strong, Unstoppable.
For real news converage "watch C-SPAN for convention coverage and get yourself psychically cleared. Stop watching cable news channels. The MSM is desperately working to program us morning noon and night. And creating despair amongst those who are openly hopeful about 2008 politics is very easy. Just bust the bubble that gives you room to believe that change can happen and the rest falls away. Including your own sense of self-empowerment. Believe it."
HELLO!!! John Kerry's speech addressed all of this--for my money, it was the most important speech of the convention. But it doesn't fit the story of weak democrats not going after McCain, so the networks don't show it, and the reporters don't report it.
I think it is asking far too much of Obama to take down the whole of right-wing dogma even if Bill gave him a great, analytically sturdy frame for doing it. He needs to take down John McCain and the B.S. machine of the GOP and the complicit media. That's hard enough work in two months.
Agree wholeheartedly with Angellight's CSPAN comment above. Stay away from the cable channels and the nets. They will kill your soul and your mind and lead you on false paths. I didn't ``know'' until I watched Jon Stewart cuff the pundits for their take on the Hillary speech -- which was objectively *exactly* what Obama needed -- that she was ``weak'' in her endorsement of Obama. God in heaven only knows what the imbeciles were saying about Bill's speech, which was flatly brilliant. And they probably ignored the best speech of John Kerry's career too. But I'll never know unless Stewart rings them up tonight.
I coul dactually imagine Dole being a decent president. I'm pretty sure he would never have invaded Iraq after 9/11 and I think it's more than probable he would have actually read the report about Bin Laden being determined to strike in the U.S.
But McCain. I just can't see him doing a good job. He's a morally suspect opportunist with a mean streak a mile wide.
It's like the old (sexist..sorry for that but the point is pertinent) story about the guy who asked the girl, "would you sleep with me for one million dollars? To which she replied, "yes"; he then asked her, "would you sleep with me for a dollar?" to which she took offense and responded, "what do you think I am???"
"We' already determined that", he replied; "Now we're negotiating a price".
John McCain PERSONIFIED !!!
"...McCain has had to prostrate himself to the neocons, the theocons, and the moneycons because that's what it takes to win the Republican nomination these days..."
It doesn't seem to me that McCain has ever had any great difference with the neocons, on the contrary, I would say his reason for the being in this race and prostrating himself to the theocons and moneycons, is specifically to implement his own "neocon" view of our role in the world.
Kevin, Before you get up from your computer find and watch John Kerry's red meat speech. It will make you question the premise of your post. I understand it was only carried on C-Span and PBS, but it drew the contrast in spades.
For all of you mindlessly nodding in agreement with Chait and Sullivan I can only assume you watched CNN, Fox, or MSNBC last night. Stop it. Those corporate clowns will rot your brain and suck out your soul.
I think the way to frame this issue is to emphasize the difference between McCain's campaign in 2000 and his current campaign. McCain ran a principled campaign against Bush in 2000 and lost. He learned all the wrong lessons from his defeat though. Now he's trying to run as Bush.
Kerry pointed this out in a somewhat subtle way (does a verbal brickbat count as subtle?) by referring to "Candidate McCain" and "Senator McCain."
God dammit, why do presidential campaign democrats always get pathetic and only after start lighting up people? Fuck.
My wife pointed out a potential serious downside in making the case that Kevin, Chait and Amy Sullivan suggest. Many people, including roughly 100% of the punditocracy, think the Mavericky John McCain of 2000-2003 is the "Real McCain". Saying he opportunistically switched to side up with the CreedoCons, TheoCons and NeoCons will suggest to some that he's likely to switch back to his true self once elected, and America will be in Post Partisan, High Broderism Heaven in 2009.
I have no doubt that that's not true, that this John McCain is closer to the real John McCain than the McMaverick, and in any case, he'd have to dance with the swine that brought him to the WH, but it's a tricky rhetorical case to make in a speech.
If you want to get elected, you have to appeal to the masses, who are now divided into selfish interest groups with selfish demands contrary to the commonweal.
If you ever wondered why the Founding Fathers were absolutely appalled at the concept of democracy, you need only look to Washington today and the breakdown of rule of law in favor of pandering, whether it be the corruption on enforcement of immigration law, where both candidates are totally corrupt, or the unwillingness of Congress to control Bush's attacks on the Constitution because they are generally popular among the great unwashed masses.
Submitted by Daryl McCullough (not verified) on Thu Aug. 28, 2008 7:49 AM PDT.
TangoMan writes: Are Chait and Sullivan blind to the fact that the same reasoning applies to Obama?
You've got to be kidding.
Folks who are poor, homeless, jobless, with no health insurance, who can't send their kids to college don't give a big rat's ass about a politician's "world view." They want to punish those that did them wrong and reward those who will do right by them.
Posted by: Econobuzz on 08/28/08 at 8:15 AM
Since the people you're describing are a tiny minority of the American people, it is understandable why Democrats keep losing elections when a majority of those who are not "poor, homeless, jobless, with no health insurance, who can't send their kids to college" realize that it is they and their families will be harmed if the Dems do get elected.
"It's what Biden was getting at when he said, "These times require more than a good soldier, they require a wise leader." "
And pray tell, Kevin, where is your evidence that the One is the "wise leader" that these times apparently require?
Biden's speech didn't offer any.
Oh and the U.S. ecomony grew at 3.3% in the second quarter. Are we now out of the recession that you claim we're currently in?
The good soldier, like W. Bush, did not have to take responsibility for his negligence and incompetence because his daddy was the admiral. Had McCain not had a father in the command, he would have been washed out of the Navy long before he was shot down over N. Vietnam while dropping bombs on civilians.
McCain has had to prostrate himself to the neocons, the theocons, and the moneycons because that's what it takes to win the Republican nomination these days: you have to be a good soldier. And one way or another that's a story that the Democrats need to tell.
I agree, but I think it's a story best told after the Republican convention next week, when McCain's willingness to cozy up to the far right will be broadly exposed. Also, the Obama campaign will then have the fully approved, reactionary text of the Republican Party to tar McCain with, which will help the claim stick.
Chicounsel and TangoMan once again demonstrate that so-called "conservatism" in America today is a degenerative mental illness that begins with an inability to hold or express any thoughts other than scripted talking points and in its final stages reduces the afflicted to mumbling irrelevant buzzwords.
Kerry got into this in his speech a bit (a speech which the MSM ignored). One of the downsides of making this more explicit, however, is that it reinforces that McCain used to be a "maverick." Reinforcing his 'maverickiness" in this may lead significant numbers of independents to think, "Well, he's just saying what he has to to get elected. I know he'll come back around to being his old maverick self once elected." So I think the speakers at the convention are playing this card just right.
"A laundry list of flip-flops doesn't make an impression unless you explain what's behind it."
Amen. With Kerry, they built a theme of weakness, of someone who won't even fight to protect himself, much less for you. There's a lot of truth in Josh Marshall's "bitch-slap" theory of that election.
The direction suggested seems right: he used to be a "maverick," but he didn't have the political courage to stick to his convictions while seeking the nomination. Instead, he sold out to the right-wing extremists who control the Republican Party today.
That's the formulation I would use over and over and over: "the right wing extremists who control the Republican Party today."
