TNR BLOGS

July 05, 2009 | 4:05 PM
July 05, 2009 | 12:13 PM
July 04, 2009 | 11:18 PM

March 09, 2009 | 5:19 PM
March 09, 2009 | 5:16 PM
January 07, 2009 | 12:20 PM

July 05, 2009 | 12:02 PM
July 01, 2009 | 10:33 PM
June 30, 2009 | 8:42 AM

July 26, 2008 | 2:24 PM
July 23, 2008 | 1:55 PM
July 17, 2008 | 3:56 PM

July 03, 2009 | 10:13 PM
July 02, 2009 | 12:57 PM
July 01, 2009 | 7:02 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
20.10.2008
Maverickiness

Another bit that jumped out at me in the Jane Mayer piece I cited earlier was her description of the McCain camp's veep selection endgame:

A week or so before McCain named [Sarah Palin], however, sources close to the campaign say, McCain was intent on naming his fellow-senator Joe Lieberman, an independent, who left the Democratic Party in 2006. David Keene, the chairman of the American Conservative Union, who is close to a number of McCain’s top aides, told me that “McCain and Lindsey Graham”—the South Carolina senator, who has been McCain’s closest campaign companion—“really wanted Joe.” But Keene believed that “McCain was scared off” in the final days, after warnings from his advisers that choosing Lieberman would ignite a contentious floor fight at the Convention, as social conservatives revolted against Lieberman for being, among other things, pro-choice.

“They took it away from him,” a longtime friend of McCain—who asked not to be identified, since the campaign has declined to discuss its selection process—said of the advisers. “He was furious. He was pissed. It wasn’t what he wanted.” Another friend disputed this, characterizing McCain’s mood as one of “understanding resignation.”

With just days to go before the Convention, the choices were slim. Karl Rove favored McCain’s former rival Mitt Romney, but enough animus lingered from the primaries that McCain rejected the pairing. “I told Romney not to wait by the phone, because ‘he doesn’t like you,’ ” Keene, who favored the choice, said. “With John McCain, all politics is personal.” Other possible choices—such as former Representative Rob Portman, of Ohio, or Governor Tim Pawlenty, of Minnesota—seemed too conventional. They did not transmit McCain’s core message that he was a “maverick.” Finally, McCain’s top aides, including Steve Schmidt and Rick Davis, converged on Palin.

It's a small detail, but I think a telling one, that Lieberman and Palin both made it through the "core message: maverick" screen, but Portman and Pawlenty did not. Lieberman and Palin are, after all, about as distant from one another--ideologically, culturally, characterologically, even geographically--as two contenders for the GOP vice presidential nomination could possibly be: a Jewish, pro-choice, moderately liberal, not particularly colorful, Northeastern, Washington establishment (former) Democrat for whom foreign policy is always Topic A vs. an emphatically Christian, pro-life, very conservative, hyper-colorful, far-West, anti-establishment Republican for whom foreign policy has never been an identifiable concern at all.

It's a good example of the way McCain's (now somewhat dented) personal narrative--that he's a "maverick," a "reformer," a "truth teller"--overwhelms any discussion of his ideology. When Mitt Romney conveniently switched his stances on a variety of issues in preparation for his 2008 presidential run, he was branded a flip-flopper and followed around by a guy in a dolphin suit. When McCain did the same, he just chanted "maverick" a few hundred times and hardly anyone even noticed. So, too, with his vice presidential finalists: The fact that, denied the guy he really wanted, he opted for someone at the opposite end of pretty much every imaginable spectrum, suggests that he has very little idea what he really believes, how he intends to govern, or what role he'd expect his vice president to play in his administration.

It's also worth noting that, from a public policy standpoint, you could probably make the case that Pawlenty had the potential to be the most mavericky choice of all. But because his personal narrative isn't exciting--and, as such, wouldn't have reflected excitingly on McCain's narrative--he didn't make the cut. What the McCain camp is saying when it says he wanted a running mate who reinforced the "core message that he was a maverick," is that he wanted to make a choice--be it left or right, a play to the center or a gift to the base, a close personal friend or someone he'd barely met--that everyone would agree was "outside-the-box" (if you're feeling generous) or "exceptionally risky" (if you're not). As has become abundantly clear over the last several weeks, this love of placing reckless bets, of inventing heroic dramas in which he can star, is central to McCain as a public figure. It's also perhaps the most compelling reason he should not be president.

 --Christopher Orr

Posted: Monday, October 20, 2008 4:26 PM with 19 comment(s)

Comments

You must be logged-in to comment.

Not a subscriber? Click here to get a digital or print and digital subscription to The New Republic!

rozenson said:

Joe Lieberman is Droopy Dog and Sarah Palin is . . . Scrappy Doo?

October 20, 2008 4:46 PM

icarusr said:

"(now somewhat dented)"

Funny; when I first scanned the post, I read this as "now somewhat demented".  Closer to the mark, I think.  

Rhubs has said it before and I totally agree with the "core message" of the McCain candidacy: being a "Maverick" does not a leader make.  One does not do, as a leader, "mavericky" things - I don't know if this is Tina Fey or Palin, any more - for the sake of being out of the box.  

And not just a leader, but in many walks of life being a maverick for the sake of bucking trends is not always a positive.  When I was hiring someone as a junior lawyer, I rejected anyone who was touted as "thinking out of the box": I wanted a sound analyst of the law, a good thinker with a sober assessment of the facts and the context of the issue s/he was addressing; someone with stable and coherent judgement; a lawyer of deep acumen who did not seek to bend or twist the law to advance policy or political agendas: in short, someone squarely and firmly within the "box" of the law and of legal traditions, rather than, like John Yoo and Fredo, someone who might be arguing "outside the box" because he does not even see or acknowledge that it exists.

October 20, 2008 4:49 PM

blackton said:

I disagree that if he took Lieberman it would have been a risky bet, in the end the fundies would have come home scared to death of the Muslim, terrorist Obama. And McCain would be sitting prettier than now. McCain simply screwed up in his choice of Palin.

October 20, 2008 5:02 PM

GSpinks said:

"...he opted for someone at the opposite end of pretty much every imaginable spectrum..."

This is just nonsense! Sarah Palin is nothing if not the Centerfold for Conservatism; in every area that matters, she is a living, breathing, shining example of what Conservatism wants to be when it grows up (for better or worse). The selection of Palin for VP was McCain's effort to "adopt" party orthodoxy, much as one adopts a stray dog, and eliminate the problem of depressed turnout and lackluster engagement among the hard-liners. I think Buchanon summarized it best: she's pro-life and that is all that matters. Unfortunately for the stray pitbull named Sarah, they put lipstick on her and tried to get her to perform parlor tricks instead of letting her be herself and incorporating her as-is, into the ticket; she already possessed the one, single attribute McCain "needed" to solidify support, but they went and set up a three-ring flea circus.

Lieberman was the only true Maverick pick for McCain. McCain often lauds his maverickiness by referring to the numberous instances in which he has bucked his party and "reached across the aisle." But when it came to selecting a VP, his party's approval came first, and maverickiness came in last.

October 20, 2008 5:12 PM

Chris Orr said:

GSpinks - You misunderstand. I was saying that Palin was at the opposite end of every imaginable spectrum *from Lieberman* (at least within the limits of minimal GOP acceptability), a point you seem to agree with.

and blackton - I'm torn over how risky a pick Lieberman would have been. You may be right that the base would have choked it down (though turnout could've been a real problem). In any case, the point is that McCain and his advisers *believed* Lieberman to be a risky choice--indeed, in the end, too risky a choice.

October 20, 2008 5:18 PM

kerFuFFler said:

Back when McCain was being "mavericky", before Bush's nomination and then 9/11, some suggest that he chose positions largely to stay in the limelight. Towing the party line is hardly newsworthy. Since then, his consistent legislative support of Bush policy give lie to the notion that he is motivated primarily by principle.

McCain has declared that character is destiny.  All the more reason to not vote for him.

October 20, 2008 5:22 PM

stgla said:

I am going to have to read that piece.  Otherwise, I cannot figure out why one would pick Palin over Jindal, who actually knows some things about pubic policy.

October 20, 2008 5:22 PM

Lityerses said:

My mother, a 64-year-old white Southern lady who has voted Republican every chance she could since the 1966 mid-term elections (she didn't even vote for Carter in '76), is supporting Obama this year.  

She was furious when Palin was announced as VP.  Hearing that McCain really wanted Lieberman, but was cowed by the threat of a floor-fight at the Convention, she lost respect for him.  To paraphrase her, "How can he lead the country if he can't lead his own Party?"

McCain's choice of Palin as VP sealed the deal for her.  She believes McCain would be likely to cross over, as it were, during his first-term and that Palin is probably the least qualified person in the Republican Party to be president in his stead.  

I'll add that my mother - and father for that fact - will both be casting their ballots in North Carolina.  

October 20, 2008 5:34 PM

Rhubarbs said:

"... this love of placing reckless bets, of inventing heroic dramas in which he can star, is central to McCain as a public figure."

This hits it on the head, in that the behavior identified -- taking big risks for the sake of the risk -- perfectly describes the concept of "batshit crazy." A maverick does not seek out risks for the sake of proving his risk-taking bona fides. A maverick is simply someone who follows his own path, but in a way that does not inspire many others to follow. (Someone who follows his own path but does inspire others to follow is known as a "leader.") Mavericks don't seek out danger for its own sake; if a maverick encounters danger, it's because his principles demand that he take that particular path on the way to a desired destination.

Were John McCain really a maverick, then he would have stuck to his guns and picked Lieberman, if that's who he wanted to pick. That he would even consider burnishing his maverick image as a factor in the pick proves beyond dispute that McCain is not a maverick.

Looking to take risks in order to demonstrate his willingness to take risks doesn't make John McCain a maverick. It makes him batshit crazy, and a danger to the republic should he become president.

October 20, 2008 6:33 PM

JEFF FREY said:

"Otherwise, I cannot figure out why one would pick Palin over Jindal, who actually knows some things about pubic policy."

Wink, wink. (Tosses hair).

Seriously, maybe Palin is better at reading lies off a teleprompter while flashing a smile than Jindal is. maybe the things Jindal actually knows means he is less comfortable mouthing outright lies. I don't know, I have never seen the guy speak.

Or maybe it is just that much harder to label your opponent as a non-American possibly-Muslim foreign agent when your own running mate is clearly not white, either. My guess is that many of the ignorant fools we have seen in videos from McCain rallies could not tell an Indian or a Pakistani from an Arab.

October 20, 2008 6:36 PM

singlespeed said:

McCain taking the soft approach and resigning himself to "accepting" Palin over Leiberman shows that he is far from Maverick but totally willing and able to sell his soul to get his shot at being POTUS. He's about as much of a maverick as James Garners TV character. If anyone caught the Frontline spot last week, you'd get a complete understanding of a guy that has been single minded about this practically his whole political career. The desire to overshadow the shoulder boards of his fore-fathers.

October 20, 2008 6:55 PM

boxofrox said:

singlespeed: That is some Oliver Stone convenient bullshit.

October 20, 2008 7:53 PM

sleepyavl said:

Jindal is serious guy. Too good for McCain.

The maverick character of McCain is reflected in the way he licked Bush's boots and campaigned for him in 2004. Some fucking maverick. Presumably in Republican English maverick is the word for ass-licker.

October 21, 2008 1:51 AM

GSpinks said:

"I was saying that Palin was at the opposite end of every imaginable spectrum *from Lieberman*"

In that case, Chris, I think you are correct. Thanks for clarifying.

"Presumably in Republican English maverick is the word for ass-licker."

sleepyavl, thanks for the laugh.

October 21, 2008 3:45 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

These leaks are standard McCain fare for his entire career:

Start blaming someone else as loudly as possible (in this case, his mean old advisors who 'made" him pick Palin) when it looks any choice he made will backfire.

He ensures that all leaks like this are as personal as possible.  Inevitably, some solemn McCain insider will intone "McCain doesn't like - fill in the blank - it's personal" and we're all supposed to quake in our boots.

He then hides behind a cloud of self defined honorable Maverick/POW rhetoric while he backpeddles and allows the far right to once again own him.

Watching the Christain right make McCain their bitch has been a long, gruesome spectacle. He's been unendlingly cowardly about it for years.  

Hiring the same exact man who attacked his family?  Putting a far right airhead with no experience a heartbeat away when he's a 72 year old man? While marching around proclaiming Country First?  

As my father (who'd loved McCain since 1972) said. "The man has turned himself into a monster."

October 21, 2008 5:45 AM

thejauntyboulevardier said:

what this reinforces for me is that fact that for all his proclaimed "maverickyness" The Mummy couldn't even pick his own VP candidate.The Right had - and has - him by his deadened and useless saggy nuts.

Now, if by some miracle, The Mummy wins in two weeks, do you think that the Right will let him pick his own Cabinet? How about Supreme Court nominees? Let's get serious; this is a candidate who cannot even choose his partner...think about the implications of that kind of impotence.

And if The Mummy croaks, can you imagine Palin standing up to the Crazed Right if The Mummy couldn't?  

This campaign has diminished John McCain in every single way. He has been reduced to a sputtering, angry, impotent, erratic, kowtowing, demagogic old fool.

October 21, 2008 10:58 AM

cspencef said:

Quoth GSpinks:

"Sarah Palin is nothing if not the Centerfold for Conservatism; in every area that matters, she is a living, breathing, shining example of what Conservatism wants to be when it grows up (for better or worse)"

Funny, I figured Palin as the pinup girl for a particular strain of conservatism that refuses to grow up.

October 21, 2008 3:36 PM

donhamm said:

"...this love of placing reckless bets, of inventing heroic dramas in which he can star, is central to McCain as a public figure."

This is reflected in his love of gambling, and of an especially risky game (craps) to boot.

I found out recently that my 90-yr-old aunt from southern Missouri, a staunch Southern Baptist and Republican her entire life, declared to my other elderly but more liberal aunt from St. Louis that she "can't stand" Palin. I don't know the exact reasons why, and I'm not so naive as to think this will impel her to vote for Obama. However, if folks like this—Palin's natural base—are turned off by her, then that's a baaad sign for McCain.

October 21, 2008 5:12 PM

Nusholtz said:

I can only say that if two years ago somone would have described Senator McCain's current campaign in the manner in which it has been run, I would have told them that they were talking about someone other than McCain.  But that probably really means nothing because if someone would have told me ten years ago that we were going to invade another country to spread our form of government, I would have told them they were talking about the former Soviet Union.  

October 21, 2008 8:12 PM