Only good moment of McCain's speech: when that kid yawned.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jW4-i-6fuRE

Wasn't there some nebulous stuff going on in there about job-training programs for ex-factory workers too?

Yeah, but it was too nebulous to count as detailed. Health care got a similarly vague aside.

This is a good point. Why is John McCain running for president? Does anyone know? Does he even know?

Don't forget - "this election is not about issues. It's about the perception voters take away from the candidates." I think we saw that thinking crystallized tonight.

Ezra you have really been on fire the last few days. Your writing and communicating skillz have jumped levels. Where is all this gestalty insight coming from?

"Why is John McCain running for president?"

I think if he were to give an honest answer, he'd say that foreign policy concerns him much more than domestic, and that on that front he honestly believes he's both far more prepared and more on the right side of the issues than his opponent. So in part, he thinks he's running to make us safe and take a tough line on China, Russia, Iran, etc. As for domestic policy, while he'd grant you that it doesn't interest him much, he'd say that he'd make decisions in a principled and non-partisan fashion, while Obama is too beholden to teachers' unions, labor unions, and ethanol producers to do the 'right' thing. That's what I think he thinks, not necessarily what I think. Though I buy into parts of it.

Ezra, these short essays you've written after the major speeches of this campaign really are some of your finest work. I look forward to them.

They run on character (read John Wayne), not issues (read the stuff that, you know, matters to lives of those idiot people clinging to their bible and guns). I get your point. But you must understand theirs. It's the same as the GOP has run for decades. God, guns, gays, blacks, Muslims, libruls. Even when they gave specifics it was never about the facts. As Rove said- he works with the faith based community. If it works this time, I am officially done with caring what happens in this country. The voters deserve what they get. Sorry for the rant at the end, but this really is pathetic. They essentially said nothing for 4 days, pushed a few emotional buttons, and still could possibly win just because of the way voters think.

I have to say I feel affection toward McCain for giving the speech he did. It was largely free of resentment and hate toward enemies Domestic, and it was also impassioned and sincere, an old pol using his once in a lifetime opportunity to spill his guts to the American people, to try to appeal to the better angels of our nature.

So the problem with the speech was not the morality, but the ideas: that what we need in our current Gilded Age economic environment is light taxes on the rich, draconian spending cuts, no serious job creation programs, and more health care insecurity.

In the end, the fundamental problem with McCain's speech is that "hard work, strong faith and a little courage", while essential, are not enough. You also need to pay attention to the laws of arithmetic, and other important facts & details. To paraphrase Richard Feynman, "For a successful Presidency, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

One important point about McCain's school choice rhetoric. School choice, if implemented honestly and comprehensively, requires cutting taxes substantially on parents currently sending their kids to private schools, and raising taxes substantially on everybody else. Which is why every school-choice program is either a small pilot program not available to most kids, or uses dishonest, flim-flam numbers to disguise the costs.

So real school-choice is incompatible with low-tax dogma, and nowhere has McCain ever indicated he understands the issue; Nowhere has McCain indicated an understanding why comprehensive school-choice has never been implemented, sticking with the usual nonsensical rhetoric about teacher's unions.

This is literally where McCain has been since 1999: passionate rhetoric about school choice, no money to back it up. Jacob Weisberg wrote a 1999 article for Slate about how refreshing and humble it was that McCain admitted his education policy proposal sucked when Weisberg challenged him on it. But it's 9 years later, and he's made no effort to fix it.

Another example of intellectual flim-flam is the Surge as the difference between Glorious Victory & Shameful Defeat. The fact is that a combination of policies and events reduced violence from horrific 2006-7 levels back to merely ghastly 2005, 2003 levels. By the GOP reasoning, we could have had Glorious Victory by pulling our troops out in 2003 or 2005, instead of sticking around in Iraq till at least 2011, to the detriment of ourselves and the Iraqis, and squandering a trillion dollars to boot.

How do you spend the week spitting piss and vinegar at "Obama" and then claim he wants to work across the aisle?

McCain thinks he is someone other than the candidate who has spent the last month running trash and nonsense ads comparing the democratic nominee to a celebrity best known for an on line sex tape.

Is he schizophrenic?

Hard to figure that speech.

On first reflection, I don't think he did what he needed to do.

Performance-wise, it was actually OK. Standard McCain fumbling for the first 30 minutes, but he did the important part at the end quite nicely.

But the narrative was missing some links. The rousing ending had no real connection to the first 30 minutes. And the whole message ended up being a bit muddled.

I thought he had a real opportunity to pick an issue or two to explicitly fight with the Republicans over, and thus get himself distance from the administration. I thought the Palin pick gave him the room to do that. But he didn't manage the independent pivot in the way I was expecting.

It's a very real missed opportunity for them in terms of teeing up their message. And without a message, they're nothing but counterpunchers, which probably isn't enough.

It's a campaign, Anonymous; what does that have to do with working across the aisle? Besides, if Obama goes back to the Senate it isn't as if he'll even be one of the twenty most important Democratic members of Congress Mccain will have to work with. This isn't like a Ted Kennedy he's spitting on here; he doesn't need a good working relationship with the guy.

"I think if he were to give an honest answer (on why he's running for President), he'd say that foreign policy concerns him much more than domestic"

It was amazing how, even before the rousing finish to his speech, he was able to read the teleprompter so much more smoothly on the foreign policy section than on the domestic policy section.

I agree with ratstew (above): Ezra has found his metier with these instant reaction pieces. This one may be the best. As for the argument, I don't think McCain is any worse than Obama when it comes to putting himself and his narrative at the center of his campaign. Both men are monsters of personal ambition. Anyone who runs for president is, unfortunately.

akaison: "If it works this time, I am officially done with caring what happens in this country. The voters deserve what they get."

yep.

I can't wait for the green screen versions (have they really not figured that one out?)

This kind of post is always your best, Ezra.

As I watched that speech I was initially relieved (it's bad), to elated (it's really boring), to a growing wistfulness (wow, it's really over.)

And by over I don't mean the election. I mean, John McCain is 72 years old and he looks every hour of it.

As I watched him it became clear that he is far, far less than he was 8 years ago. Realizing this made me sad. He just seems broken. Between getting tortured by the Vietnamese and worked over by Bush, a man who was busy protecting the bars in Texas and Alabama from bankruptcy, and now getting out shown by his understudy, McCain's story is tragic in a Shakepearian sense. He's King McCain, and, yes, that makes all of those Right Wing Nut Jobs like Palin his ungrateful and ambitious daughters.

You know, if McCain loses one of the last big echoes of Vietnam will fade away. The war ended 40 years ago. The only remaining Vietnam vets in Congress are Democrats (somebody fact check me on that).

Of course, check back with me tomorrow. I'll feel far, far less charitable after Palin and the rest of the Smart Ass Republicans like Nicole Wallace and Rush Limbaugh open their mouths tomorrow. After tonight's speech they will know that their only chance is to wage an incredibly ugly campaign against Obama.

Today's Republican Party isn't worthy of the trust that so many millions of people - including millions of vets - put into it.

One of his lines was "We need to catch history".

With the anti-science and progress people in his party, he must mean by grabbing it and pulling it backwards.

Asher,

It might have something to do with practicing what you preach. Things like not questioning the patriotism of your opponent because his views are not yours. Is that too much to ask? He says he wants to change Washington, stop the partisan bickering, reach across the isle, and he says this while simultaneously slinging shit at his opponent.

Such public declarations of patriotism are not about why John McCain loves this country. They are about why this country should love John McCain.

Good observation. That gets to something that bugs me in general about the way Republicans often demonstrate their patriotism. I feel like they're trying to win an "I love my country more than you" contest. They get so darned pleased with themselves it becomes all about them. The country, and the idea that there's anybody else in it besides them, gets lost.

Btw, the "generic American house" didn't seem all that generic to me. My first thought was: is that McCain's house and are we going to see all 17 of them?

Such public declarations of patriotism are not about why John McCain loves this country. They are about why this country should love John McCain.

Good observation. That gets to something that bugs me in general about the way Republicans often demonstrate their patriotism. I feel like they're trying to win an "I love my country more than you" contest. They get so darned pleased with themselves it becomes all about them. The country, and the idea that there's anybody else in it besides them, gets lost.

Btw, the "generic American house" didn't seem all that generic to me. My first thought was: is that McCain's house and are we going to see all 17 of them?

Wait a second, I'm not sure I gather something here.

John McCain was a POW?

Huh! I've never heard that before! I mean, of course, John McCain is an honest but humble man. I'm sure some lesser, more mundanely political player would have tried to play that up at some point during the convention. In fact, I can think of a few egotists that would have every speaker mention it, like it was the rationale for the candidacy or something. Not like John, though.

Really, a prisoner of war? Crazy.

Msw, I just don't see what bi-partisan lawmaking has to do with campaign tactics. LBJ was not a very nice campaigner - he depicted his opponent as a madman who was going to blow up little girls in a nuclear war, but at the very same time, he was twisting enough Republican arms to get the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

Lackluster McSame outing. The problem is that he doesn't need much pazzazz these days with Palin doing her sailin'. There has to be a way to send some icebergs their way. How's the scandal list coming? Btw, better to focus on that than to dis her hair any more.

Damn, that last paragraph is good.

he'll fight for niggers

1. Um, the entire RNC needs to be filed under the WTF?! category. Three days of speeches that had one theme, as expressed by commentator Mark Shields, "Throw the bums out." Yippee. I'm all for that. Maybe the Obama team needs to pay royalties, because these speeches are going to get a lot of airtime in states with incumbent Republican senators running for re-election.
2. Tough to be a maverick and support the current administration over 90%. AND, on all the important issues he opposed the admin. on, he has now recanted, such as tax cuts, torture, immigration.
3. Speaking of torture, he admitted that he "broke" after being tortured. Isn't that a pretty good reason why torture, beyond being immoral and dangerous to our own troops, is just not effective. If they can break McCain and make him say untrue things, why should we believe anything said by our captured "enemy combatants." Maybe the defense teams at Gitmo should subpoena McCain to testify on why not to believe admissions made after torture.

The government should think first before doing something because not all the people will agree on it. Some will protest while some other people will just ignore it. The financial problem is one of the challenges that the people are trying to cope up nowadays. The inequality in the population and health profiles of rich and poor countries is widening. Because of this some of us might find it hard to live well especially if we spend more than we earned. With this problem, we often solve this by running to a payday loan company. Payday loans are helpful especially in times of emergency situation that concern about money. Today there is already an online loan like no fax payday loan. This site discuss about no fax payday loans: http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/. You’ll know the big difference of no fax payday to other payday loan companies.

Obama apparently just told O'Riled that he invented the surge. And the internet. Who'd a' thunk it? He may get a Nobel for this….

"""Of course, you must say this much: McCain's recounting of his experiences as a prisoner of war remain powerful. But that was 40 years ago. ""

Actually it was 36 years ago, when Biden was already a Senator.

Yeah, were all very tired of Obama re-counting his, I had a Father from Africa and a Mother from Kansas rant, which happened 45 years ago, but still gets mentioned in every Obama speech; and has absolutely nothing to do with the mans career in service to the Nation.

At least McCain is recounting something he DID as a soldier fighting for his country. Obama story is basically two horny college kids had sex...

By the way, how mant times have we had to hear the Biden, I took the train home every night...WOW! powerful argument to elect him...what great service to the Nation.

Or how many times do we have to here Bidens Scranton story...HE LEFT SCRANTON 56 YEARS AGO!

McCain's speech actually reminded me a lot of Ross Perot's approach, just without the personality weirdness.

Problems with energy security & cost? Well, we'll just 'fix it'.

Problems with the economy? We'll 'fix it'.

Problems with education? 'Fix it'.

Any actual ideas? 'Fix it, fix it, fix it!'

Mr. Klein--
My interpretation of the "humble servant" and "country first" is that they are all code words for the christian crowd. Palin also used those phrases. The idea they are tapping into is that USA=Christ. I know this sounds crazy, and it is, but i am fairly certain it is the framework of their argument. Obama is "the One" (the antichrist) while Palin and the old guy are humble servants of the Lord/Country.

simple as that, really. The struggle to clarify the depth of one's patriotism is equivalent to identifying one's deep personal relationship with jeezus.

As a result, one person IS the agenda. The details do not matter, the level of corruption does not matter (gotta love all the corrupt religious leaders who get a pass from their base....the fact that McCain has 7 houses just means he is blessed by the lord....the fact that Palin has abused power and lies just means she is as human as the rest of us...but it is their humble servitude...more humble and servile than the uppity pride of Obama...that wins them the votes of the xtian base.

good luck to them with this anti-rational argument.

My rule of thumb is that when someone says that they're humble, they're so not.

Humility is a virtue that you're better off not discussing about yourself at all.

How do you spend the week spitting piss and vinegar at "Obama" and then claim he wants to work across the aisle?

Because he will. The the profound disappointment of conservatives everywhere. He won't give Democrats everything they want on things like Iraq, might hold the line on taxes and insist on some more domestic drilling and energy production, but he will work across the aisle on all sorts of domestic issues . . . including Global Warming, on which he's drunk the Kool-Aid, and will be right in there trying to stop Global Warming while the planet is busy getting colder, naturally.

But John McCain will work with democrats, once elected (if he is). Will it be enough to satisfy Obama voters? No. But he will do it. I think it's a mistaken pledge though: nobody in the base cares, or wants him to work with Democrats, and nobody on the other side is going to ever believe it's true, even when it's happening.

Problems with energy security & cost? Well, we'll just 'fix it'.

Problems with the economy? We'll 'fix it'.

Problems with education? 'Fix it'.

Any actual ideas? 'Fix it, fix it, fix it!'

To be fair, the same criticism could be made of Obama's speech (and was). And the same retort can be made: "the specifics are on his website!"

The decision was clearly made by both camps, and not without reason, that the conventions were not places for specific policy details.

McCain's policies are given in more detail on his website, but I doubt they will satisfy anti-Republicans any more than the details of Obama's plan pleased the anti-liberal crusaders out there.

I thought that, in isolation, it wasn't a bad speech. It seemed as if someone had slipped in a generic boilerplate Democratic speech into the teleprompter, with some added POW frosting.

McCain is doubling down on change. And banking that any undecided voters just tuned in for his speech and didn't pay attention to any of the earlier speakers. See how reasonable he is? He criticized Republicans! He believes the economy sucks too!

Now, I don't see why a voter who accepts that things are bad and the Republicans screwed it up will decide to put another Republican in office. But the traditional media will lap it up and probably aid his convention bounce.

As for the argument, I don't think McCain is any worse than Obama when it comes to putting himself and his narrative at the center of his campaign.

Well, McCain isn't any worse about doing that--there campaigns are, in many ways, about them, after all--but he is certainly not as good at doing it as Obama is. When Obama is putting himself at the center of the political universe, if feels natural. You don't see the seams. All the effects aren't obviously CGI.

With McCain, when he put himself in the middle of it all, it just doesn't feel as natural. It seems forced, and you see all the scaffolding holding the effort up. Ah, the importance of charisma.

Sort of like with John Kerry and his narrative was what his election was all about--it was often awkward and clumsy and you could clearly see where the set stopped and the painted background began. John McCain might have made a good running mate for John Kerry.

Hell, most days, I'm pretty sure John McCain would have become a liberal Democrat if he thought it'd get him the presidency.

After tonight's speech they will know that their only chance is to wage an incredibly ugly campaign against Obama.

That was the case before tonight's speech, because it's almost always the case. Negative campaigns work. Often, the uglier the campaign can go without doing something so deeply offensive that they can't backtrack, the more likely they are to win. There is a fine line. They have to be ugly and negative about the right things.

But voters are clearly influenced by negative campaigning. Otherwise, candidates would not make commercials about their opponents. Folks who try to run uniformly positive campaigns almost always lose.

Today's Republican Party isn't worthy of the trust that so many millions of people - including millions of vets - put into it.

This is true. It's also true of the Democratic party. Turns out politicians are mostly about their own power and privilege and, as often or not, when they really are devoted to policy initiatives, the policies are wrong-headed or have unintended consequences.

Vote Gridlock, 08!

Good observation. That gets to something that bugs me in general about the way Republicans often demonstrate their patriotism. I feel like they're trying to win an "I love my country more than you" contest.

I'm pretty sure, for the most part, we do love the country (warts and all) more than you!

I also probably love 1980s Flash Gordon movie more than you. I may love Disney's Tron more than you. Want to bet I love Gatlinburg and Dollywood more than you do? I bet I do. Maybe even Disney World. I sure love that Mainstreet, USA.

I bet I love the Republican party, the works of Thomas Sowell, small town America, folks who dress up in camo and go hunting at 5 AM, more than you do. Maybe not. But I'd lay even odds.

So much about the left is about not liking the country--don't like the businesses, don't like our energy consumption, don't like our super-power status, don't like how many super-rich people we have, don't like that we can't wave a magic wand and make poverty and crime go away without somehow forcing people to work or putting all the criminals in jails, don't like talk radio, don't like conservatives, don't like bitter clingers with their God and their guns and so on. I know they don't like that in America, the marketplace can propel Rush Limbaugh into the most popular radio show ever, and yet reject Air America. No justice! Everything about America is suspect, all of our great history is tainted, our legacy is an ugly mess of war, white men, slavery and corruption. And poverty. And 3rd world healthcare. How can you love that evil, nasty place?

Do you look at the heartland, at small town America and big cities alike a find yourself all gushy and agog at our great country, and what we have accomplished, and what good people we have here? I do. Do you love stopping at truck stops off the Interstate, looking through the kitschy stuff they sell, listening to the truckers flirt with the cashiers, etc? I sure do.

And the American flag. Dang, I love that flag.

USA! USA! USA!

Agree that these reactions are the genre in which you are strongest -- and the McCain one the very best. Can you quit the healthcare wonkery and do this instead? This is where you shine. There are thousands of people advocating socialism in one part of the economy, or all, but what you are doing here is much rarer.

Well we should see also the personal aspects. Sure he would be the right man for president if we ignore how old he is. But one thing what gives me bad headache is this illness (cancer). Personaly I would say poor old man but objective I have to say that an ill person is maybe not able to do the presidental job with 100%. Greetings, Niki

Kevin: I'd say you love your image of the country.

To be fair, both McCain and Palin included increased nuclear power in their energy plans, not just drilling. Obama also dropped nuclear into his acceptance speech. I know I've been harping on this for months now, but I'd still *love* to see a post detailing the positives and negatives of nuclear power. The "drill here, drill now" approach is stupid. If we can't get any substantive increase in production for ten years, and nuclear is a legitimate option, why not just skip drilling and go for nuclear as the bridge between our hydrocarbon economy and whatever alternatives we come up with in the next ten years?

Actually, now that I think of it, it reminds me of "The Matrix" where Morpheus explains the machines' power supply as the heat from humans *combined with a form of fusion*!

Kevin: I'd say you love your image of the country.

Of course you would. Other folks would say things much worse. And it's part of what I love about you. All of you!

God Bless the USA.

If we can't get any substantive increase in production for ten years, and nuclear is a legitimate option, why not just skip drilling and go for nuclear as the bridge between our hydrocarbon economy and whatever alternatives we come up with in the next ten years?

There are a few reasons.

1. Just starting on domestic production, seriously, where it looks like it really going to happen within the next decade, impacts the futures market, and thus the price.

2. Nuclear power plants take time to build. To fully replace all of our natural gas, oil, and coal fired power plants would take considerably more than 10 years. And that's assuming state and local government's cooperate, which many of them won't. Many states have paid big money (re: the taxpayers are paying big money) to mothball nuclear power plants, because they are worried about the dangers of an old Jane Fonda movie. Getting nuclear is going to be a trick, but it seems to work all right in France. And they've got to be able to find some place to put their nuclear waste. I'm thinking maybe they're putting it in their cheese.

3. Cars and trucks will be running on hydrocarbons for well over 10 years. Some folks are out there driving vehicles that are 10 years old. Or more. Also, it may well be ten years before all-electric cars are available in price ranges the average consumer can afford, and will be over a decade before the infrastructure to support a nation of electric cars is in place, even if we start today.

4. It's still not a bad idea to have domestic supplies of oil. We use oil in almost everything, from plastics to pharmaceuticals. The cheaper the price of oil (any oil domestically tapped will be going on the world market, and that will lower the price) the cheaper almost everything we use ends up being in the long run. Cheap oil and Chinese slave labor, and even the middle-class American can live like a king!

The negatives of nuclear depend on the plant type, but can generally be summed up in: waste. Where we gonna put it?

Posted by: Kevin S. Willis | September 5, 2008 7:01 AM

Posted by: Kevin S. Willis | September 5, 2008 7:09 AM

Posted by: Kevin S. Willis | September 5, 2008 7:19 AM

Posted by: Kevin S. Willis | September 5, 2008 7:26 AM

Posted by: Kevin S. Willis | September 5, 2008 7:41 AM

For the last time, Kevin, NO we have no interest in buying any medical supplies!

I may love Disney's Tron more than you.

This claim is highly, highly unlikely.

----

As far as McCain as president, I will have to argue that it's pretty hard to be both for bipartisanship and against pork. How do you get your plans through Congress with bipartisan support? You offer goodies to congressmen and their districts in exchange for their votes. What can McCain possibly offer Democrats in exchange for supporting his dubious ideas, which aren't even that popular with the electorate?

Its morning. A little political reflection. It's hard to say change when you've been at it for decades. It's hard to say elect me to throw the bums out when you are one of the bums. This was the central issue, IMO, with the speech and why it said nothing.

Listening to McCain on the radio without visual cues I was struck by how old his voice sounded. Really old, retirement old, grandfatherly old. Not want you want to hear from someone who's auditioning to be leader of the free world. As to the POW narrative, it was the most compelling part of the speech, but at the end I wanted to give him another medal and put up a statue in his honor somewhere in DC, not elect him president.

For the last time, Kevin, NO we have no interest in buying any medical supplies!

What about watches? Penny stocks? Seriously, I switch up my URL. Check it out.

I may love Disney's Tron more than you.

This claim is highly, highly unlikely.

Really? You think so? Bring in the logic probe!

Hey, look, you guys are gonna make my user, Mr. Henderson, very angry. He's a full-branch manager.

Man, I love that movie.

That's Tron. He fights for the users.

"But John McCain will work with democrats, once elected (if he is)."

He didn't even have enough backbone to stand up to his own party when it came to picking a vice president. Maybe, once upon a time, he was capable of doing such a thing, but I see no reason to think that John McCain has what it takes to work with democrats against the interests of his own party. Everything that's happened since he clinched the nomination suggests otherwise.

the digitized backdrop behind McCain was a perfect symbol for the address: It began with a generic American house

Surely you've seen TPM on this by now. If you're thinking of the same building they picture, it's Walter Reed Middle School in North Hollywood (!

He didn't even have enough backbone to stand up to his own party when it came to picking a vice president. Maybe, once upon a time, he was capable of doing such a thing, but I see no reason to think that John McCain has what it takes to work with democrats against the interests of his own party.

Well, he will. He didn't go against his own party picking a nominee because he wants to be president. I'm pretty sure if he had the presidency, he would cease being all that responsible to his base. But, either we will find out or we won't.

When do Democrats, other than Joe Leiberman and Zell Miller, stand up against their party? Has Obama ever worked against the interest of the Democratic party?

Don't get me wrong. If he is elected and doesn't reach across the aisle, that's fine with me. I just don't think that will be the case.

Asher,

LBJ was not a very nice campaigner - he depicted his opponent as a madman who was going to blow up little girls in a nuclear war, but at the very same time, he was twisting enough Republican arms to get the Civil Rights Act through Congress.

But in 1964-65, lots of Republicans thought that Goldwater was a madman. You think Nelson Rockefeller and his allies in the Northeast were offended by LBJ's attacks on Bang-Bang Barry? The GOP was in civil was in 1964 -- LBJ figured out how to get enough of the (eventual) losing faction to side with him to pass his legislative agenda. The (eventual) winners, in turn, picked up the Southern racists. And having picked them up, they've done everything they could since then to stoke the flames of racism, fundamentalism and militarism. Congratulations, GOP!

akaison,

If it works this time, I am officially done with caring what happens in this country. The voters deserve what they get. Sorry for the rant at the end, but this really is pathetic.

Hey, if enough Americans would rather have a white President and his corrupt, lying, fundy VP bring their sons home in boxes from Iraq or Iran or Georgia or god knows where, rather than having a Black President bring them home safely or never send them in the first place, what are you gonna do?

I think it's crazy for people to sacrifice their own well-being and the lives of their children so that they can stick it to the imaginary Liberal boogeyman again, but if that's what enough voters want, it's what we'll all get.

Sorry -- that last Anonymous comment in reply to Asher and akaison was from me.

saturday, july 15,1944

"that's the difficulty in these times: ideals, dreams, and cherished hopes rise within us, only to meet the horrible truth and be shattered.
it's really a wonder that i havent dropped all my ideal s, because they seem so absurd and impossible to carry out. yet i keep them, because in spite of everything i still believe that people are really good at heart. i simply cant build up my hopes on a foundation consisting of confusion, misery and death. i see the world gradually being turned into a wilderness, i hear the ever approaching thunder, which will destroy us too, i can feel the sufferings of millions and yet, if i look up into the heavens, i think that it will all come right, that this cruelty too will end, and that peace and tranquillity will return again.
in the meantime, i must uphold my ideals, for perhaps the time will come when i shall be able to carry them out.

yours,anne

"the diary of a young girl"

evil gains a foothold when enough good people stand by and do nothing.

Kevin, he may very well go against his party if he wins, but he's not going to do so in the election campaign. Thats probably a big detriment to him. I really don't see how he wins without some very large sista soulja-esque smackdown of his party's base. Those people aren't popular. They are reviled. A lot of people, not just lefties, think they've run this country into a ditch in the last decade. He needs to voice some of those concerns, he needs to talk about WHERE the Republicans have gone wrong and how he'll set the party on the right track again. If McCain keeps running the usual 'liberals hate America, Government is evil, and the TERRORISTS ARE COMING!!!' campaign he's been running, then this is over and it won't even be that close by modern standards. He'll lose by 5-8% and 80-100 Electoral votes.

From where I'm standing, I think they know they are going to lose and they are trying to energize the base to minimize Democratic coattails in right-leaning districts. It's the only think that makes sense.

This is true. It's also true of the Democratic party. Turns out politicians are mostly about their own power and privilege and, as often or not, when they really are devoted to policy initiatives, the policies are wrong-headed or have unintended consequences.

Ahh, the old "well both candidates are the same so why not just vote for our guy" argument. Look at how well that worked out in 2000 and 2004!

Not falling for it.

But in 1964-65, lots of Republicans thought that Goldwater was a madman. You think Nelson Rockefeller and his allies in the Northeast were offended by LBJ's attacks on Bang-Bang Barry? The GOP was in civil was in 1964 -- LBJ figured out how to get enough of the (eventual) losing faction to side with him to pass his legislative agenda. The (eventual) winners, in turn, picked up the Southern racists. And having picked them up, they've done everything they could since then to stoke the flames of racism, fundamentalism and militarism. Congratulations, GOP!

The business world, evolutionary biology, and numerous other seemingly unrelated fields are just now starting to study failure instead of success. It's easy to write a 12-steps-to-success book, based on a decent model, but for every success, there are ten companies doing the exact same thing that fail. So, study failure instead. Seems that's everywhere these days.

And in terms of politics, any unbiased look at history will show that in as many elections as not, the winner didn't really win as much as everyone else lost. Last man standing sort of thing.

My favorite example is Bill Clinton. And I'm not pretending to know what the right answer is, but I'm pretty good at point-counterpoint. And for every argument that Clinton was the definitive political player of his time, there's another argument that he was lucky as all get out and folks self-desctructed around him. I mean, please, Bob Dole? Lamest campaign ever by one of our greatest statesmen. And is it really success if you personally win but you bring your team down all around you?

Speaking of success / failure: I'd like to hear whoever it was define success in Iraq, and in doing so, define the Surge and explain why success in Iraq is a good thing if the cost is failure in Afghanistan. A buddy of mine from high school just got back from Afghanistan, and all he says is, G-damn DVA-hating GOP and their Iraq tunnel vision.

Whatever he had to say, it you turned the sound off (and I did a couple of times) it was scary what a tired old man he looked like. This isn't someone excited to move forward, he's looking to coast to the end. McCain is just Bob Dole all over again. He thinks that after all his years in politics he Deserves to be president like it's some sort of ultimate promotion. That's really what the whole "experience" argument really boils down to, "I've stood in line waiting and IT'S MY TURN".

I actually agree with Kevin Willis here. If McCain is elected, expect him to sell out the conservative base on one domestic policy after another. If McCain wants to get anything done, he'll have to cease being responsible to his conservative base, given that Democrats will have large majorities in both houses of Congress.

Not that liberals would be happy with McCain either, far from it (I think McCain would be even more of a neocon on foreign policy than Bush is), but I could very easily see conservatives being even more infuriated by McCain than they were by Bush the elder.

Excellent essay, Ezra.

I'm not a psychologist (nor have I stayed at Holiday Inn Express), but after reading many accounts of McCain's military career, I'm believing there is an answer to the question:

""Why is John McCain running for president?"

John lived in the shadow of his father and grandfather, both Admirals that he worshipped. But he wasn't the naval officer of hard work, and steady leadership that was expected of him. When he lost the fifth airplane and was captured/tortured his life took new meaning. After rehab (post-prisoner), he became a squadron commander - the first step toward leadership in the flying navy. He did OK, but was passed over to promotion that could have led to being an admiral. His life story is the playing out of that failure to attain as much as his idols. He choose politics instead, and he wants to believe that he will be the outstanding Commander-in-Chief that will get him into the mental halls or glory that eluded him as an officer.

He "knows how the win a war", he says, without evidence because the story in his mind outweighs the reality of his shortfall compared to his father and grandfather.

He will do anything to achieve that redemption that he seeks. He's the old soldier facing the end of his aspirations, and he 'must' reach for the goal that he wasn't quite up to achieving.

It's a sorry story, and it explains why neither policy nor principle are his interests - but instead deep inside is this need to prove something to himself and others drives his actions.

That this today and ultimatedly a delusion isn't within his outlook.

He's a sad old man, living on dreams of an unmet goal being somehow rescued before the story ends.

This is about John, not about the USA.

Kevin's the only one so far who's spotted what is, to me, the most salient point of this speech: that it reflects exactly the strategy that John Kerry used, albeit in a very different context.

It might prove meaningful that Kerry's narrative was meant to patch over a perceived weakness and McCain's is meant to bolster a perceived strength, that Kerry had an advantage in policy that McCain does not, or that McCain isn't going to be swiftboated. On the whole, though, I don't expect this to be terribly successful. The presidency is not a cousin of the Academy Award for lifetime achievement, and has not been treated as such in the past.

The presidency is not a cousin of the Academy Award for lifetime achievement, and has not been treated as such in the past.

After this country elected George W Bush twice, it's pretty hard to argue with that.

Kevin's the only one so far who's spotted what is, to me, the most salient point of this speech: that it reflects exactly the strategy that John Kerry used, albeit in a very different context.

Bull poop I said the same thing on another thread a few days ago. Worth pointing out again though. McCain's strategy is very Kerry. In 2004 the Democrats figured that what people wanted was Tough Talk on Terrorism. So they nominated a war hero, someone they figured would be credible Talking Tough. Fail.

In 2008 the Republicans know people want Change. So they nominated the Maverick, and said hey, we can do change too! You don't have to go crazy and elect a black guy or something, people!

Fail? We'll see.

Kevin, he may very well go against his party if he wins, but he's not going to do so in the election campaign. Thats probably a big detriment to him. I really don't see how he wins without some very large sista soulja-esque smackdown of his party's base.

Could be, but I don't think McCain can afford to piss off his base. He's done too much smacking down on them, from their point of view, already. If he starts doing it again, they are going to see it as indicative of how he's going to be Democrat-lite in the Whitehouse, and they won't show up at the polls on election day. He loses. Of course, if he turns off all the swing voters, he loses, too.

I've said for a while I think it's Obama's election to lose. McCain will get elected if Obama does a bad job, or the Republicans finished their massive Diebold voting machine retooling project.

I think the Obama campaign agrees. They've been hitting McCain, but they've been reserved. They've been playing it reasonably safe. I tend to think it's Obama's by default--or it will painfully close--unless Obama gets caught smoking a hookah with a terrorist or ends up having a love child with John Edwards or Bristol Palin.

Kevin,
How can you acknowledge many of the shortcomings of the current administration (to put it lightly) and the systemic corruption via the Diebold machines and still be somewhat undecided? Or even pretend to support Federal government gridlock by voting McCain?

You must have your head in the sand if you haven't already noticed what the McCain/Palin administration will look like, which is the SAME.