Seeing the McCain problem, but not seeing it

John of Powerline quotes a 2005 letter signed by Sen. McCain and 19 other senators, all of them Republicans, warning that Fannie and Freddie were heading toward disaster unless they were not reined in; and he expresses his amazement that McCain has not forcefully drawn attention to the fact that he was right on the issue and the Democrats were wrong:

For some inexplicable reason, John McCain seems unable to claim the credit he deserves for being one of the few politicians in Washington who saw the present crisis coming and tried to do something about it. He is even more unable to vigorously and unambiguously put the blame where it belongs: on the Democratic Party. Which is one of the principal reasons why, as everyone expects, he will lose in November.

But of course the reason is not inexplicable at all. McCain’s behavior pattern is very well known: he is unwilling to attack Democrats, and he strives to prevent other Republicans from attacking or even disagreeing with Democrats. Didn’t John of Powerline read former Senator Rick Santorum’s remarkable interviews with Mark Levin and Hugh Hewitt this past January in which Santorum laid out the whole pattern of McCain’s pro-Democratic, anti-Republican behavior in the Senate?

Furthermore, not just the pattern of McCain’s behavior, but the motive for it, is evident:

HE IDENTIFIES WITH THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AND. THEREFORE, LIKE ALL LIBERALS, HE SEES OPPOSITION TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY AS “DIVISIVE.”

How is it that Powerline has been observing McCain for so many years and still hasn’t figured out his m.o., and so is still “shocked, shocked” when this lifelong ally of Democrats acts like … an ally of Democrats?

Which brings us to the one silver lining of an Obama presidency: we won’t have a Republican president who is compelled by his deepest beliefs to side with Democrats and oppose Republicans. And we won’t have clueless conservative pundits promoting and defending a “conservative” Republican president who is in reality an agent of the Democratic party.

- end of initial entry -

John D. writes:

You wrote:

“But of course the reason is not inexplicable at all. McCain’s behavior pattern is very well known: he is unwilling to attack Democrats, and he strives to prevent other Republicans from attacking or even disagreeing with Democrats.”

This in itself shows that John McCain is not acting rationally as would be considered rational behavior for anyone running for public office. And it should be considered even less rational for someone running for public office who is behind in the polls. I find it very strange that a man who continually calls himself a “dedicated warrior” and is currently running for president on a platform that continually boasts of his superior ability to protect the homeland, will not even act to protect his own interest in securing the presidency. This is not rational behavior in this instance, not even for John McCain.

LA replies:

But it is rational behavior if McCain’s highest allegiance is to liberalism and his highest value is to help advance the Democratic party.

And isn’t his “warrior” stance, like this “I’m a proud conservative who is pro-life” stance, just boob bait for conservatives?

John D. replies:

Then the fact that “his highest value is to help the Democratic party” while running as, and calling himself a Republican, either makes him an extremely evil traitor or, irrational. One way or another, his behavior is neither consistent nor coherent.

Michael K. writes:

I often try to imagine the campaign that Mitt Romney would have run.

Then I compare that to the crapfest that is the campaign of John McCain. The right is crying out for McCain to articulate the conservative case for the presidency. But it won’t happen because you are absolutely correct: McCain is not a conservative. And he will lose the election because he can’t even bring himself to fake it.

LA replies:

It’s heartbreaking. And I will never forget how virtually the entire conservative establishment—including the chestless nonentities at National Review, which had endorsed Romney for the nomination but didn’t mean it—kept ignoring and putting down Romney, failing to see that notwithstanding his imperfections, including the imperfection that he was “too perfect,” he had eloquently and thoughtfully pledged himself to conservatism, was far better than McCain, and was the only truly viable candidate in the race. Think of the superior brains and ability to make an argument that Romney would have brought to bear against Obama. Instead, the only thing we have standing in the way of an Obamized America is a mediocrity who is less intelligent than G.W. Bush (REPEAT: THE GOP NOMINATED A MAN WHO IS LESS INTELLIGENT THAN THE LEAST INTELLIGENT PRESIDENT WE’VE EVER HAD) and temperamentally incapable of seriously opposing a Democrat.

LA continues:

Also, much is made of Obama’s good looks, intellect, and eloquence, as compared with the broken down looking, inarticulate McCain. Romney would have been Obama’s match and then some. And then there’s the fact that Romney is still married to his first and only wife, while McCain always seems to carry an air of guilt—guilt over his betrayal of his first wife, guilt over the Keating Five, guilt over having opposed the King holiday, guilt over attacking Democrats, guilt over being a Republican, guilt over being white. By contrast, Romney glows with wholesomeness and hopefulness.

October 13

James P. writes:

I am skeptical that Romney would have run a better campaign against Obama than McCain, at least from the standpoint of forthrightly saying negative (but true) things about his opponent. Romney did not make much use of his “superior brains and eloquence” when he was running against McCain, and seemed about as fearful to say any “negative but true” things about McCain as McCain is to say such things about Obama. My recollection of the McCain/Romney debates is that Romney was practically tongue-tied in the face of McCain’s sneering contempt. If Romney wouldn’t or couldn’t take the gloves off against a fellow white Republican, would he have the guts to do so against Obama?

Regarding “McCain’s ignoble failure to ignite,” the simplest explanation for why McCain won’t look his enemy squarely in the eye and tell him he is wrong is that McCain does not think his enemy is wrong. It comes across loud and clear that the actual substantive differences between McCain and Obama are very narrow indeed.

LA replies:

Romney did go after McCain hard on illegal immigration, at least in his ads. But in their (I think it was) last TV debate, McCain was viciously disrespectful to Romney (something to do with time tables in Iraq), and Romney took it too well, IMO. He should have struck back. At the same time, Romney has a lot going for him, and if in an extended battle with Obama, there is at least a good chance he would have figured out how to fight effectively.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at October 12, 2008 04:07 PM | Send