John McCain’s Greatness & His Campaign’s Biggest Flaw
In the course of this campaign, I’ve really come to admire John McCain. This is not to say I’ve found him perfect, but that I’ve overcome my doubts about the Arizona Senator and become convinced he could be an excellent chief executive.
In recent months, I’ve read two of his books, Why Courage Matters and Worth the Fighting For, and am currently reading a third, Hard Call: The Art of Great Decisions, having read Faith of my Fathers during the 2000 campaign. The former POW is clearly cut from presidential timber, understanding American history, policy issues, particularly effecting our nation’s standing in the world. Not just that, he has shown an appreciation for human greatness and sympathy for human frailty.
McCain’s books show a great deal of appreciation and affection for men and women from all walks of life, including Georgia Congressman John Lewis who recently badmouthed the Arizona Senator. By contrast, Obama’s books dwell on his own struggles and feelings, helping define him as a thoughtful and introspective individual, but not a chief executive. A smart, indeed thoughtful, man Obama clearly is, but a leader he is not.
Yet, where the Illinois Senator has excelled has been on the stump. When Obama has a well-crafted speech in front of him, few can compete with him, particularly when the media magnifies his remarks, highlighting his most powerful passages. And ignores his bumbling responses when speaking without notes.
McCain, however, seems his best in such unscripted situations, speaking sincerely from the heart, addressing the audience in front of him. How often we hear of Joe Biden’s silly statements in such situations. How frequently Obama’s such statements make the news, at least on the right.
Alas that such candor in front of crowds, large or small, when not clownish, rarely makes the national news. And that has hurt John McCain. His rhetorical strength does not lend itself well to the current media age. It’s why, I believe, Peggy Noonan was on to something when, in her column today, she faulted the Republican for not going around the media and gently seizing “the country by its lapels.“
I wonder if McCain could do this, what Reagan did. He excelled in his conversation with Rick Warren, but how many people saw that? He’s good in most “townhall” settings. But, few remember his speeches, as we all recall Sarah Palin’s address this summer to the Republican National Convention in St. Paul.
Perhaps, that’s why so many Republicans have seized on Joe the Plumber. He has done what McCain has had difficulty doing. He has connected with the average American. No wonder the left (and their allies in the MSM) are so eager to destroy him.
If John McCain had Reagan’s gifts, this election would have a much different dynamic, even in an atmosphere favorable to the party out of powr. And that should give Democrats pause. And Republicans hope.
30 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI
I do not see Sarah Palin’s name anywhere in this post and your discussing the McCain campaign’s biggest flaw?
Denial is not just a river in Africa, apparently.
But some Republicans get it. Even McCain adviser Charles Fried, former Reagan Solicitor General, gets it. He announced today that he voted for Barack Obama via absentee ballot. His principal reason for defection? McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate.
Fried asked to have his name take off McCain’s list of advisers.
Oops.
See, It’s not just the “liberal media” that think Palin’s woeful inexperience would be dangerous for this country. It’s even McCain’s own advisers.
Comment by Erik — October 24, 2008 @ 2:52 pm - October 24, 2008
So, Fried voted for Obama’s complete lack of any qualifications to be President over Palin’s inexperience to be President only if McCain dies? That’s comical. It’s even more comical that he would vote Biden for Veep over Palin. I guess that all just reinforces the post’s point that Americans don’t seem to care much about what the candidates really stand for versus how good they look on TV.
Comment by Hunter — October 24, 2008 @ 3:00 pm - October 24, 2008
Obama’s complete lack of qualifications? He has what I consider to be the most important prerequisite to being President: He’s really f-ing smart.
And, as David Brooks said recently, that’s why Palin represents a cancer to the Republican Party. Your party’s rejection of intellectualism is destroying it.
You need more people like Bobby Jindal and a lot less Sarah Palin.
Comment by Erik — October 24, 2008 @ 3:16 pm - October 24, 2008
It’s now how smart you are, Erik, it’s how well you execute. And Obama has shown no capacity to do that. Whereas Palin has.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — October 24, 2008 @ 3:31 pm - October 24, 2008
Well, you’re entitled to your belief, of course. Democrats and even many prominent Republicans, disagree with you. But certainly you have to admit, if McCain hadn’t chosen her, you’d have more money to spend on ads, LOL. Of course, we all know it was revealed that the RNC spent 150,000 to outfit Palin and her family. Today it was revealed that the highest paid person on the McCain campaign’s payroll for the first two weeks of October was Palin’s make-up artist. $22,800 for make-up… in just two weeks!
They couldn’t get a make-up artist for say… a couple thousand? LOL
Comment by Erik — October 24, 2008 @ 3:41 pm - October 24, 2008
LOL…yup, Obama is so smart, he doesn’t even remember what committees on which he serves in the Senate.
Of course to Erik, Obama doesn’t have to be as smart as a white person to count as “really smart”; he just has to be black, and that automatically counts for intelligence points.
Meanwhile, Erik is expecting us to believe that people like himself who are completely in the tank for Obama have any respect whatsoever for Bobby Jindal. It’s hilarious that a person like Erik who insists that “thugocracy” is automatically a a racist term is knocking the intelligence of someone like Sarah Palin.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2008 @ 5:03 pm - October 24, 2008
“It’s now how smart you are, Erik, it’s how well you execute. And Obama has shown no capacity to do that. Whereas Palin has.”
that’s a joke. Palin has done nothing but lie and fuddle her way through issue after issue - she has shown nothing close to the ability to be VP. Palin did little as governor - and NOTHING as mayor of Wasilla.
Obama recognizes that AS Americans, we are citizens of the world. He has the intelligence (strike palin) the temperament (strike mccain) and most importantly the JUDGMENT (strike McPalin) to be CiC. He is the best nominee for president that we have had in quite a long time - and ranks up there with those in our history.
You know who had LESS experience that Obama?
Abraham Lincoln…. our MOST popular president.
You know who had MORE experience than McCain?
James Buchanan - our 2nd to LEAST popular president.
the past experience is simply not as important as intelligence, temperament, & judgment - all of which Obama has and Palin/McCain don’t!
Obama has had the biggest, most effective campaign and get out the vote effort in political history - and that shows he has no capacity to be an executive?
I have no problem with McCain, really. I do feel that he has let his campaign be run by dishonorable people - who have since done dishonorable things
but I do believe McCain is a good man. I do believe he wants what is best for this country - but I honestly believe he does not know what that is. And I think he is too old to effectively do the job of president. Add to that Palin’s complete & utter incompetence - and you’ve got WW3 in a bottle.
Comment by Kyle — October 24, 2008 @ 5:06 pm - October 24, 2008
sorry x2
Comment by Kyle — October 24, 2008 @ 5:06 pm - October 24, 2008
Wow. And I suppose next you’ll say Obama’s diplomas from Columbia and Harvard were a byproduct of affirmative action? I mean, when you’re laying it on that thick, why not go all out?
Comment by Erik — October 24, 2008 @ 5:17 pm - October 24, 2008
Jindal was a Rhodes scholar, went to Brown and then Oxford. Does that mean I’d vote for him? No. But Jindal’s educational background is very impressive and it earns him a worthy spot to compete on the national stage.
He too is very smart, even though I disagree with his politics.
Comment by Erik — October 24, 2008 @ 5:24 pm - October 24, 2008
Of course they are, Erik; after all, according to Barack Obama, we can’t get rid of affirmative action because then no black person would ever get into school or graduate. Therefore, the fact that he did is a demonstration that his degrees are as a result of affirmative action, since he insists that no black person can graduate or succeed without it.
Furthermore, attempting to invoke degrees from Columbia and Harvard as proof of Obama’s intelligence mean nothing when you and the Democrat Party have spent the past eight years arguing that Bush’s degrees from Yale and Harvard mean nothing.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2008 @ 5:26 pm - October 24, 2008
Claire Danes (i think) went to Yale too. She was helped out because she is an actress. The Ivy League schools do take people of privileged background sometimes because of their names and who they are. That’s a matter of fact. So it is very impressive when someone like Obama or Jindal can come from an ordinary background, attend those schools and (most importantly) excel at those schools. That sets them apart from Bush.
Comment by Erik — October 24, 2008 @ 5:36 pm - October 24, 2008
@Erik
“That’s a matter of fact. So it is very impressive when someone like Obama or Jindal can come from an ordinary background, attend those schools and (most importantly) excel at those schools. That sets them apart from Bush.”
Exactly!
Comment by Kyle — October 24, 2008 @ 5:42 pm - October 24, 2008
Ah yes; so now we see Erik desperately trying to claim that Bush’s degrees are a byproduct of his being “privileged”….but that Obama’s cannot POSSIBLY be a byproduct of affirmative action.
Meanwhile, I am amused by your attempt to use Jindal to justify your racist beliefs, but the simple fact of the matter is that Democrat liberals like yourself endorse and support racial attacks on conservatives and Republicans like Jindal and Michael Steele, just like you’ve endorsed sexist and misogynist attacks on Palin while screaming that any criticism of Obama is “racist”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2008 @ 5:52 pm - October 24, 2008
Being President doesn’t require “smarts”, it requires decency, common sense and basic people skills that you don’t just learn in Law School. We’ve had too-many Law Review “geniuses”, and too-few “good, decent people” as POTUS. Jimmy Carter was trained as a Nuclear Engineer, but it didn’t make him a good President, and Clinton-42 was a Rhodes Scholar and look where that got us.
If you demand “experts”, that’s what a Cabinet is for.
What’s needed in the Oval Office is someone who can synthesize the “big picture”, and act. Not someone who gets all bogged-down in the details and loses track of the priorities of the moment. Just as successful, innovative businesses are built by the “C”-students…and driven into ground by the “straight A”-students with the MBA; the same is true with governance.
All Gods save me from the “experts”….
Comment by Ted B. (Charging Rhino) — October 24, 2008 @ 6:05 pm - October 24, 2008
Obama’s grades and transcripts from Columbia have never been released. He has also never released his graduate thesis from Columbia. It makes me wonder what he’s hiding.
My own impression is that Obama is possessed of a very mediocre intellect, and benefited from an academic milieu in which conformity to liberal dogma was rewarded and melanin a much valued commodity.
Comment by V the K — October 24, 2008 @ 6:09 pm - October 24, 2008
@ ted
“Not someone who gets all bogged-down in the details”
exactly the problem. McPalin just like bush has contempt for intelligence, and breeds ignorance. You’re all too wrong about not needing intelligence in a POTUS.
[Where's your evidence that she has contempt for intelligence? Point to her actual word or actions. --Dan]
you need someone willing to look at the details - not someone who “goes with their gut” in opposition to all facts and research.
You got your good ole boy, it was Bush, he destroyed our country. go figure.
Clinton was the best president we have had in recent times, and obama will be a better one. Bush ran us into the ground, Clinton did not.
@ V the K , I simply have to disagree.
Comment by Kyle — October 24, 2008 @ 6:25 pm - October 24, 2008
To illustrate, Obama’s approach to the current economic difficulty reflects an utterly conformist liberal view: raise taxes and spend heavily on infrastructure. Not only are these ideas mediocre and pedestrian, they are also the same policies that stranded Japan in recession for ten years; a fact Comrade Obama seems completely unaware of.
Comment by V the K — October 24, 2008 @ 6:32 pm - October 24, 2008
And of course, Kyle, Obama’s command of the “facts” is such that he claims credit for bills from a committee of which he’s not even a member.
Funny how he missed those “details”, isn’t it? Why is it that you won’t hold Obama accountable for his lack of interest in details and his attempt to “go with his gut”?
Answer: Because Obama is black, and therefore, you refuse to hold him to any standards. You simply assume he is intelligent because of his skin color and refuse to criticize him or critique him because you are convinced that doing so is “racist”.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — October 24, 2008 @ 6:32 pm - October 24, 2008
One example of the mediocrity of Obama’s thinking is his approach to the current economic difficulty: raise taxes and spend heavily on infrastructure. Not only do these policies show an utter lack of innovative thinking, but they are the same policies that stranded Japan in recession for ten years; a fact Obama seems completely unaware of.
Comment by V the K — October 24, 2008 @ 6:35 pm - October 24, 2008
What was this post about… oh yeah, McCain’s campaign. I know there are those that will disagree, but McCain’s chances went off the rails when the campaign stopped focusing on policy and move into attack mode - Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers, etc. Sure the base got the red meat they were looking for, but the McCain camp forgot to prepare the rest of the meal.
Comment by sonicfrog — October 24, 2008 @ 7:14 pm - October 24, 2008
And the reason McCain failed to do so is because he does not understand or respect the base. He shares the elite view that the Republican base is uneducated, bigoted, and unsophisticated (bitterly clinging to guns and religion). So, he miscalculates about to handle Ayers/Wright/Rezko.
Sarah Palin does understand and respect the base. When she addresses issues of concern to real Americans, she doesn’t come across as condescending or pandering like the elitist McCain does.
Comment by V the K — October 24, 2008 @ 8:03 pm - October 24, 2008
Noonan is hardly the oracle at Delphi. (Perhaps America’s lapels didn’t feature a flag pin?) She writes: “The worst resolution would be no resolution. And the quarrel would not, for even a moment, abate.” No, the worst resolution would be the one she implies would silence the quarrel as if a ‘quarrel’ (an electorate that is confident enough to disagree) is unacceptable. Erik is inadvertently right. Noonan doesn’t mention Palin (her video with Murphy dripped venom), yet she offers McCain campaign advice. Her article’s tacit disapproval gives the term ’spinster’ a whole new meaning.
Comment by Ignatius — October 24, 2008 @ 8:11 pm - October 24, 2008
I don’t think Harry Truman had a college degree. Ronald Reagan graduated Eureka College.
Lyndon Johnson graduated from SW Texas State Teacher’s College. Jimmy Carter graduated from the Naval Academy as did John McCain. GW Bush has degrees from Yale and Harvard.
Robert Mugabe has several degrees (including from the Univ of London).
The point being that one’s alma mater is no guarantor of success/failure and no indicator of good/evil.
As Dan pointed out, it’s not how smart you are; it’s how you execute.
My own observation is that there’s little correlation between intelligence and education. I know some damn smart people with high school educations and I know some real idiots with advanced degrees.
A smart person can learn; a person’s judgement determines what use they will make of their learning.
Bill Ayer’s may be “smart” (he managed to become rich and comfortable in the country he hates) but he’s a loathsome human being - I wouldn’t let him lick my shoes.
There are a lot of people in Congress with advanced degrees (usually JDs) - see what a good job they’ve been doing!
Comment by SoCalRobert — October 24, 2008 @ 9:20 pm - October 24, 2008
It seems the left is arguing that they like Obama because he has been to the right places and knows the right people.
Whereas the right likes Palin because she has the right ideas.
Comment by V the K — October 24, 2008 @ 9:50 pm - October 24, 2008
Who would have thought that Erik admires Clarence Thomas?! He certainly came up from humble roots, through Yale, to the top of his field.
In addition to his education, he managed to survive the minefield the left sets up for anyone that deigns to deviate from lefty dogma.
Someone ought to make a list of decent people savaged by the left. We can start with Joe the Plumber and little Trig Palin.
Comment by SoCalRobert — October 25, 2008 @ 12:39 am - October 25, 2008
Yeah, until his teleprompter goes out, or he doesn’t have a scripted answer written for him… then we see his true genius at work. Heck, even when he DOES have scripted answers written for him, here’s seven unrepeated minutes from a 15 minute Obama press conference.
Or perhaps you means the same “f-ing smart” guy who thinks he has visited 57 of the 60 states?
Who complains that Iraq is keeping us from sending Arab interpreters to Afghanistan where they don’t speak Arabic?
Who thinks Hugo Chavez came to power after Bush?
Who thinks Kennedy’s talks with Khrushchev got him to pull missles out of Cuba when he actually put them IN Cuba as a result of talking to Kennedy?
Who thinks an asthma attack isn’t an emergent situation and should be treated with a breathylizer?
Who thinks he was speaking to fallen heroes on memorial day?
Who thinks his uncle liberated Auschwitz?
Who thinks 10,000 people died in a tornado in Kansas last year?
Who thinks he was conceived at the Selma march 4 years before it happened?
Who cant tell the difference between Sioux City, Iowa, and Sioux Falls, South Dakota, even when he’s in Sioux Falls?
Who introduced Biden as the next President (that ones probably just a Freudian slip since we know Barack won’t be running his own administration)
The guy who goes to a racist anti-American church for 20 years and doesn’t know it?
The guy who picked someone who’s been wrong on every foreign policy issue (not to mention domestic) in the past 36 years?
and I’ve barely scratched the surface
Comment by American Elephant — October 25, 2008 @ 6:07 am - October 25, 2008
@North Dallas Thirty
Sorry man, you’re just flat out wrong. race simply isn’t the first thing on everyone’s mind. maybe that influences your decision - but not everyone elses.
it is simply ignorant to assume that everyone thinks the way you do, or that everyone cares more about race than the FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY.
you obviously do, and that’s fine for you - but don’t associate that view with everyone you talk to - because it won’t be theirs.
I support Barack Obama because I believe what he says, and I believe that he can make a difference. Conversely, I do not support John McCain because I do NOT think he is capable of making the changes needed.
By your logic, I assume the only reason you are voting for McCain is because he’s white? you don’t want to to dissapoint your race? or is it palin - because she’s a woman - you don’t want to be considered sexist.
either way, you’re a joke.
Comment by Kyle — October 25, 2008 @ 9:26 am - October 25, 2008
Meh, I think it’s a given that many if not most of Obama’s followers are motivated primarily by race, but it is a side issue, and distracts from the more dangerous issue of his radicalism.
Comment by V the K — October 25, 2008 @ 10:52 am - October 25, 2008
@V the K (28)
“I think it’s a given that many if not most of Obama’s followers are motivated primarily by race”
I do not agree. either way, both of us are making assumptions based upon the way we view the world, our bias. I would like to see your records and facts regarding this - unless, you are just making a biased assumption.
your conservative bias tells you that there is no way anyone thinking rationally could believe Obama to be ready to be president.
my liberal bias tells me that there is no way McCain is any longer capable, or Palin competent, to make the changes necessary in DC.
the difference being, that I recognize not everyone fits into my stereotypical worldview. I know a lot of racists that are republican, but I don’t necessarily believe ALL racists are republican.
I can see that there are people with their hearts in the right place, fully intelligent enough to comprehend the situation, but simply have a different way of interpreting the information than me - that doesn’t make them racist, stupid, or any number of names I’ve been called simply for not agreeing with the republican dogma.
whereas you would attribute your negative rhetoric to any person that does not share your views. that simply is not true, let alone “right”
Comment by Kyle — October 25, 2008 @ 12:02 pm - October 25, 2008