TNR BLOGS

December 01, 2008 | 11:48 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:20 AM
December 01, 2008 | 10:16 AM

December 01, 2008 | 11:22 AM
December 01, 2008 | 11:10 AM
December 01, 2008 | 9:57 AM

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

December 01, 2008 | 12:00 PM
November 29, 2008 | 3:23 PM
November 29, 2008 | 2:18 PM
COLUMNISTS
TODAY'S STORIES
27.07.2008
McCain on 'This Week'

Both candidates took Sunday-show turns today. Noam blogged below on Obama's smooth "Meet the Press" ride. McCain for his part did ABC's "This Week" with George Stephanopoulos, with somewhat more mixed results. I've never found McCain terribly appealing in the talk-show format. You would think he can channel more of the freewheeling humor that wins him such love on the Straight Talk Express, but he often seems stiff and irritable, as was the case today. (McCain seemed too stressed even to find real levity in the appearance of his dogs on the interview set.)

More specifically, as you'd expect, Iraq was at the heart of the interview. Stephanopoulos opened by pressing McCain on his weird statement Friday that Obama's 16-month withdrawal plan "is a pretty good timetable." After first denying that he'd used the word, McCain seemed to argue, in essence, that what he meant was bringing troops home in that time would be nice, so long as conditions on the ground allow it. McCain clearly doesn't think they will, however, and argued that the critical difference between himself and Obama on Iraq remains that "the timetable is dictated, not by a artificial date, but by the conditions on the ground, the conditions of security." I do think this is what McCain meant all along, (although as one who administered a beating to Mitt Romney before the Florida primary for another vague use of the word "timetable," McCain enjoys little high ground here).

As Noam noted, Obama sought to move Tom Brokaw's questions about his opposition to the surge back to the original decision to go to war. Likewise, McCain steered George Stephaphanopoulos to his own support for the surge. What was most interesting here was McCain's apparent contention that the surge was a more important test of national security decisionmaking than the decision to go to war itself

MCCAIN: When the decision had to be made whether to adopt the strategy of the surge, he said it wouldn't work, it would increase sectarian violence. He said all those things that made it acceptable to the left of his party.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But there was a fundamental difference about the original decision to go to war. He said it would inflame the Muslim world, it would become a recruitment tool for al Qaeda. You said, and you wrote, that it would lessen antipathy in the Muslim world, and that we'd be greeted as liberators. Wasn't Senator Obama right about that?

MCCAIN: I don't believe so. We were greeted as liberators. We mishandled the war for nearly four years. We mishandled it in a way that was so harmful that I stood up against it. I said it wouldn't work. I said we had to have a new strategy, and I was criticized for being disloyal -- disloyal to Republicans.

STEPHANOPOULOS: You also said many times that the strategy was the right strategy.

MCCAIN: I said that Saddam Hussein caused a -- imposed a threat to the United States of America and our security. And the Oil for Food scandal, the $12 billion he was skimming, the fact that he had said that he had in operation and he wanted to have weapons of mass destruction, the fact that this society that he ruled in such a brutal fashion was really awful. And he did pose a long-term threat to the security of the United States of America. But that's a job for the historians.

When the crucial time came as to whether we were going to leave Iraq and lose, or stay and do the very unpopular thing of 30,000 additional troops -- asking young Americans to make the sacrifice -- he was wrong, I was right. That was the crucial point... [emphasis added]

Even though McCain doesn't concede that he was wrong about the war, it's striking to hear him write off fundamental questions about the invasion of Iraq as "a job for the historians," then declare the tactical issue of the surge "the crucial time." Seems to me the crucial time was March 20, 2003 and the preceding weeks and months.

Something missing from today's interview--perhaps it was taped before yesterday evening?--was a detailed conversation about McCain's striking new ad attacking Obama for cancelling his scheduled visit to see wounded US troops in Germany. Stephanopoulos asked McCain about Obama's decision not to see the troops, drawing a derisive response. But the ad, with its sneering tone (and baseless charge that Obama cancelled because "the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras") demands of McCain an explanation of how it squares with his pledge to run a civil campaign. Specifically, I'd love to know just what McCain thinks Obama's non-visit proves about his opponent's ability to lead the country.

Other highlights included McCain's incredibly unconvincing defense of his gas-tax holiday--when pressed on how he'd stop oil companies from pocketing the savings as nearly every economist predicts, McCain simply asserted "we wouldn't let it happen... we'd penalize them if necessary" (do McCain's free-marketeer advisors know that? Is he now in favor of the Democratic windfall tax proposal?)--and his support for an anti-affirmative action ballot measure in Arizona, a reversal of his past position, says Jonathan Martin, and the target of a "disappointed" Obama response here.

All in all, I saw virtually nothing here that will help McCain reboot the race after his decidedly horrible past week.  

--Michael Crowley

Posted: Sunday, July 27, 2008 9:00 PM with 10 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!

Brent said:

McCain's "striking new ad"?  How about McCain's vile, disingenuous, pathetic, reprehensible new ad?

The press needs to be pummeling McCain over this ad.  Straight talk?  Puh-leaze.

July 27, 2008 11:21 PM

LDuncan said:

McCain has been performing so horribly, pretty soon we will all have to ask the Geraldine Ferraro question but in reverse:

"Would John McCain be where he is today if he were not white?"  

This is only a half-joke.  I was enough of a masochist to watch the Republican primary debates from about September 07 through January 07, and I was telling every one of my liberal friends who would listen (approximately no one) that the real surprise for me in watching those debates was to learn that McCain really ain't very smart.  He was just fine at spitting out an initial two-sentence answer but he was among the worst on the stage at defending his answers when there was any kind of pointed follow up.  I went to law school and McCain was like the earnest kid who prepared and could answer the question about the case itself but then showed a complete lack of depth when the Prof did a bit of Socratic follow up.  

I truly think that McCain, like W, is a "gut guy" and not a "fact" guy; his gut takes him to different places than W's gut takes W, but it's still his gut and not any searching intellect that you see revealed in debates or long-form interviews like Stephanopoulos' yesterday.  So that tells me McCain's either dumb or very intellectually lazy.

This is also why when Noam was putting the question to us all several weeks ago, I was and remained a firm believer in calling McCain's "town hall" bluff.  Obama will mop the floor with McCain, and the sooner the public sees that McCain is much dumber than Obama the better.  It takes a long time to set aside long-held ideas, such as that McCain is an intelligent Maverick and Obama a glib but callow pretty boy.  The sooner those preconceptions are exposed the better in my view.

July 28, 2008 1:32 AM

JEFF FREY said:

First, I think McCain needs to explain how his Obama wants to lose a war to win a campaign comment (approximate wording) squares with that pledge.

Brent's adjectives cover the ad well. But it is funny that the "go to the gym" footage showed him shooting hoops with the troops. But I don't think the ad is aimed at people who are paying close attention....

July 28, 2008 2:07 AM

psantillana said:

yes yes, with LDuncan on the town hall thing. That would be the briar patch for Obama. Game completely over after that.

July 28, 2008 3:21 AM

scrubbyoak said:

LDuncan, don't forget that Gore mopped the floor with Bush but got no credit. The press in general said he was rudely arrogant and just full of himself, remember? That became the larger narrative from that point on during the election of 2000. Obama has got to be real careful. My impression is that the press is looking for anything to tar him with.

July 28, 2008 8:08 AM

aeromonas said:

Yeah, LDuncan, I'm with scrubbyoak on this one.  While I'm quite sanguine about Obama's prospects in November--I'm on record as predicting an Obama blowout--but I recognize that smart don't win elections.  

The problem is that 75% of the electorate thinks it's smarter than the world gives it credit for.  It--the 75%--might not have been to Harvard, and it might not use a lot of fancy language, but, by God, it has COMMON SENSE.  And it sees that John McCain too has COMMON SENSE.  And so to the degree that Mr. Harvard sets about dismantling McCain with his highfalutin arguments, it's an insult to COMMON SENSE and hence to 75% of the electorate.

see "Anti-intellectualism in American Life" by Richard Hofstadter

July 28, 2008 8:59 AM

cspencef said:

I've done rather a lot of seconding aeromonas lately, and here I go again.  The "elitism" meme already floating around against Obama is rife for reinforcement with the "too smart" theme aero suggests.  

July 28, 2008 10:58 AM

Wandreycer1 said:

Stephanopoulos is so obnoxious, so shallow, so universally wrong in every prediction or pronouncement he ever makes (twas ever thus with him), he's like the gossiping, interrupting twerp from Poli Sci 101 class freshman year.  I couldn't watch him for five minutes, and I tried.

July 28, 2008 1:03 PM

Robert Powell said:

Overconfidence is unwarranted. In spite of a shambolic, constantly wrong-footed campaign, McCain is well within the margin of the "undecideds".

An Obama has a huge vulnerability in his astonishingly naive persistence in suggesting that Afghanistan has anywhere near the importance of Iraq. People with common sense know better.

July 28, 2008 3:59 PM

psantillana said:

Everything you're saying about Bush/Gore is true, but remember that a lot of people have intense buyer's remorse about Bush, and are rethinking their love for stupid. Especially after Katrina.

July 28, 2008 9:13 PM