The Great Untested John McCain

by publius

McCain’s general election campaign is not off to a smooth start. First, his opening salvo focused on Obama’s commitment to public financing promises -- whoops. Next, his campaign responded to the (grossly irresponsible) NYT article with an impulsive, overbroad “never helped any lobbyists ever” denial – thus opening himself to more unfavorable press.

These tactical misfires won’t sink his campaign by any means. They do, however, raise larger concerns. Simply put, McCain hasn’t proven himself to be a good campaigner yet. In fact, there are many reasons to think that he’ll actually campaign poorly.

I’m a big believer in the “primaries matter” theory. Elections are Darwinian environments – and candidates tend to win for a reason. Tactics matter, as does an ability to tap into the larger Zeitgeist (i.e., structural forces matter too, but good campaigners recognize and tap into those underlying currents). For this reason, candidates who look great on paper (Dole, Rudy, HRC) lose if they run wretched campaigns. Similarly, candidates who don’t look so hot on paper can compensate with superior campaigning skills. In short, people who win tend to run superior campaigns. Not always, but generally.

At first glance, you might think McCain’s primary victory is evidence of his own campaigning skills. But I don’t think so. His victory (for unique reasons) doesn’t necessarily show his Darwinian chops. Despite all his experience, McCain remains in many ways a roll of the dice.

Consider 2000. While he had some initial success due to fawning press coverage (which is probably his key “skill”), the ultimate result was a spectacular flameout in South Carolina and beyond. The South Carolina tactics were despicable, sure. But Republican primaries aren’t pretty. He knew the players involved and should have been better prepared. More to the point, you can’t win a Republican nomination when you ostentatiously demonize key coalition members, as he did. Personally, I applauded the criticism of Jerry Falwell, but I’d have been cringing if I were his campaign manager.

Moving on to 2008, the stars aligned perfectly for him. Ross Douthat has made the case more eloquently than I have, but McCain’s victory had a lot to do with luck. First, his rapid ascent helped him avoid embarrassing media moments. Remember that, for most of 2007, McCain was ignored. Thus, he wasn’t subject to the type of exacting scrutiny that Romney and Rudy (and, to a lesser extent, Fred Thompson got). He had to keep things together for a month rather than a year – a much easier task.

Second, his victory was less than overwhelming. McCain won a relatively small plurality among a sharply divided field. His victory had less to do with his savvy campaigning, and more to do with (1) a conservative base split between Romney and Huckabee; (2) Rudy’s rapid collapse and strategic blunders; and (3) Thompson’s silly last stand in South Carolina. None of this establishes that McCain is a bad campaigner. The point is that his victories don’t necessarily establish that he’s a good one.

He looks great on paper of course – and his story and service should be honored. But the flaws I see with McCain (and his staff, frankly) are (1) a lack of strategic foresight; and (2) impulsiveness. Neither is well-suited to a high-intensity presidential campaign.

On #1, it’s hard to fathom how a campaign with such significant exposure on the FEC front would open the general with an attack on Obama’s commitment to public financing. I mean, it’s not like they didn’t know the FEC troubles were brewing. To me, it shows (at best) a lack of communication and (at worst) a failure to think a few moves ahead on the chess board.

On #2, McCain has always been a hothead. I worked on the Hill for six months as a nobody and even I heard McCain stories (I heard a few more as a lawyer in DC). The temper itself is not necessarily a problem (see, e.g., Bush, Clinton). The problem is acting (and talking) without thinking. For instance, saying that he’s never helped lobbyists is just patently ridiculous, particularly from such an experienced legislator. It's also ridiculous to deny that he spoke with Paxson -- though I'm sure his passion for the Pittsburgh media market runs deep. This statement is already getting him into some trouble.

But the larger fear for Republicans is that the same impulses that led him to blurt this denial out could lead him to blurt out something much more harmful – particularly under the Sauron-esque eye of the national press corps, bloggers, and YouTubers. There’s less room for error in the post-George Allen world. Part of being a good campaigner, after all, is being disciplined. For all its flaws, the Bush team was a relentlessly disciplined organization.

McCain, of course, is the strongest GOP candidate on paper. And he may well prove the best campaigner. But I ain’t seen it yet.

Comments

[Gregor Samsa]

I think that you nailed it like Digby!!

McCain is an awful public speaker and an atrocious campaigner. He doesn't really have the knack of connecting with people. So his whole career is based on his POW story, the manufactured maverick myth and favorable press.

He has never had a real opponent before - I predict a rocky road ahead for him and a resounding defeat in the general.

[GNZ]

The NYT times story is possibly the best thing to ever happen to the Republican party - its a perfect storm of stupidness. Unless the NYT has been taken over by fox news while I wasn't looking.

Anyway, one strategy one can use against a good campaigner is "I'm not a good campaigner, you can see through me - so vote for me as opposed to the snake oil salesman".

In fact against a great campaigner that might be the only workable solution - there is no point putting up a guy who is good but not great so that he can loose by 5 points or so no matter what.

[publius]

i don't really buy the whole 'nyt consolidated conservatives" argument though. i mean, it was bound to happen. maybe obama would sneeze funny and rush would say "well, this just makes it clear why we have to rally against the evil librul."

i mean, the assassination of archduke FF didn't really cause wwi. it simply ignited pre-existing dry straw. same deal here -- the limbaughs, etc. were inevitably going to rally. it was just a matter of when.

that's not to say this isn't a reckless story, b/c it is.

[yoyo]

Conservatives will grudgingly get behind mccain. But just wait till he loses the election. Mccain's corpse will a thoroughly-stabbed pulp. The post-election republican party will be a fun, fun spectacle.

[liberal japonicus]

Why do the words to the Great Pretender keep going thru my mind?

Oh yes, I'm the Great Pretender, pretending that I'm doing well.
My need is such, I pretend too much. I'm lonely, but no one can tell...

[superdestroyer]

McCain's inability to think about the long term consequences of his political positions demonstrates that he his not fit to be president. Senator McCain is so stupid he cannot understand that open borders and unlimited immigration make the existence of a conservative party in the U.S. an impossibility.

The Democratic Party stands a great chance of getting the 60 seats in the Sensate that will not only make the Republican Party irrelevant but will make the U.S. a defacto one party state.

[liberal japonicus]

but will make the U.S. a defacto one party state.

Given the Dem's incredible discipline to stay on message and punish Dems who act in a wayward manner, I'd say this isn't too much of a worry.

[Sir Hobo]

My theory is that the Republicans are intentionally putting their worst foot forward so a Dem can step into the White House and take all the blame for the inconceivable mess left by BushCo.

[dkg]

He is just a government employee who took his work and traded for a job in Congress. He then held on for life because he's a loser in the real world, like all those other guys who AVOID TERM LIMITS to let others serve.

[Bill]

Yes to all. But rising from the campaign chaos, there’s Meghan McCain. Heiress to a Budweiser distributorship, cute, and likes to talk.

http://mccainblogette.com/

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you missed the key factor in McCain's victory: The distribution of winner take all vs PR primaries. If the primaries had all been PR, or all winner take all, McCain's lead at this point would be small enough that the race would still be competitive. But they weren't all one or the other, McCain was largely winning winner take all states, while the others were winning PR states, with the result that McCain got a delegate yield wildly disproportionate to his vote totals.

The result is a nominee who can barely pull off occasional plurality victories in his own party's primaries, if they're seriously contested. If he had to run against anybody but the 2nd coming of George McGovern, he'd be so doomed.

[Scott de B.]

If he had to run against anybody but the 2nd coming of George McGovern, he'd be so doomed.

So you're saying he's doomed, then?

[OCSteve]

I love this:

The prospect of being financially hamstrung by the very fundraising system he helped create…

[LFC]

I watched an interview with McCain where he supported the war, security, Obama, and other very serious topics. The thing that struck me REALLY HARD was that he has many of the same mannerisms as George W. Bush. He smiles and chuckles at the wrong places, like when the topic concerns death or danger. He blinks constantly. And he seems to get a little befuddled (not as bad as GW) when the topic veers off his chosen track.

Maybe I'm making too much of his mannerisms, but to me it makes him appear to be a person that is missing a certain type of seriousness. After 7+ years of watching my country get destroyed by somebody of that ilk, I'm not interested in 4 more years of it.

[Davebo]

Worse still, he has a Gramm from Texas advising him on economics.

As you might recall, that didn't work out so well for Enron.

[John Thullen]

GNZ at 2:52AM:

"Unless the NYT has been taken over by fox news while I wasn't looking."

Well, in a way it has, if you look at it in the larger sense of the world market for journalism being taken over by the Rupert Murdoch model of news dissemination. I'm not arguing for or against the idea that the NYTimes or anyone else is biased; I'm arguing that Murdochism -- leading with sensational bias and some [email protected] is now the business model.

If you want to see the most recent example of this phenonomen, look at what has happened to the CNBC business channel since FOX announced its Neil Cavuto-led knockoff. The bullying shouters, the short-term happy talkers, the investing-as-patriotic-ideological-enforced-optimists, the Wall Street snake=oil saleforce are now in charge. Maria Bartiromo, the money-honey, may appear topless soon, to go with her blathering.

The market works. Ain't that great.

I think it used to be possible to get a pretty good perspective on the world from traditional journalism -- regardless of whether the bias of the individual outlets was liberal or conservative.

I respect William F. Buckley but Rich Lowry is a callow hack. The conservative who seeks objective news but visits Drudge first and thinks it's an improvement is a hack looking for fellow hacks in stupid hats.

By the way, counter-intuitively, I don't think the Internet has improved "journalism" in any way, shape, or form. It's just a speedier way to locate the fellow-biased with some shopping along the way.

True, it makes specialized stuff more accessible, you know, in case the Dewey Decimal system seemed a little cumbersome.

[Dan Miller]

re: "The fundraising system he helped create"--I've never understood this. The public financing system has been around since 197x (6?). Did McCain have some sort of role in the post-Watergate campaign finance debate that I'm just not aware of? Because McCain-Feingold modified the fundraising system, but it sure as hell didn't create public financing, or even have a significant impact on it (more's the pity).

[John Thullen]

Oh yeah .... McCain:

In the all-important category of who you would want to have a beer with, McCain is a great improvement over Current Occupant.

Former military colleagues, not including the Vietcong, say that going into town with McCain for a weekend of leave was like going to war. The same herky-jerky-Godzilla-rampage-knocking-over-buildings quality we see on the campaign trail must have been a hoot for fellow carousers and law enforcement alike.

You wanna stick close to a guy like that even if he does think it's funny to stagger into the street at 3:30am and shoot a shot glass off your head at ten paces.

That sure beats Current Occupant, who I expect along about 10:30pm and a snoutful would become embarrassingly petulant to the waitress, maybe cry and wet his pants, and then lecture you about his principles and the evils of drinking as you and another guy helped him back to base.

More seriously: Phil Gramm back in government, say, as Treasury Secretary or head of OMB is unthinkable. I read the other day that Gramm wants a healthcare system in which the young pay nothing extra to support the older and infirm in any kind of insurance system, private or public, which of course, means no insurance system at all.

I'll cut to the chase: That is Murder. The right-to-lifers will love it though because their taxes will be cut drastically.

Phil and the dear, severe Wendy take pills today that we all pay for, which is fine by me at the moment.

I don't wish them health. They can get down off the wagon and kiss my ass.

[hilzoy]

Gregor Samsa: "McCain is an awful public speaker and an atrocious campaigner."

This (the atrocious public speaker part) was, for me, one of the lessons of the parody of the Obama video that involved people trying to sing over McCain. They made it funny, but it was also striking how much harder it was to do something like that with McCain's words than Obama's. I went back and watched it again to see whether I was just being unfair, or maybe they were, but I don't think so.

And besides that, the difference in command of policy is pretty astonishing.

[Incertus (Brian)]

I mean, it’s not like they didn’t know the FEC troubles were brewing.

I think you can trace that back to pure arrogance--they might have figured that, at the very least, the FEC couldn't stop them until after the fact, and that the FEC wouldn't actually come down on them even if they were in violation. Republican loyalty and all that.

[Sebastian]

If you're going with the Darwinian analogy, McCain's problem might not be that he isn't the fittest, but that Republicans are for various reasons drawing from a thin and inbred gene pool.

[tyronen]

By this logic, Obama isn't all that tested either. He will probably win mainly because Hillary isn't a great speaker, is loaded with baggage, and ran an overconfident, badly organized campaign, while Edwards got a $400 "haircut" and was tarnished by his 2004 defeat.

Kerry ran a strong, disciplined primary campaign in 2004. His superior ground organization in Iowa kicked the stuffing out of Dean's "perfect storm" amateurs. Yet he couldn't carry that state in the general.

[John]

I don't think it's fair to say McCain has no campaigning skills.

He's terrible at giving a speech, certainly.

He's not good in debates, either.

However, he is very good at retail politics - town halls, one on one interaction, etc. That's how he won New Hampshire twice - you can't win New Hampshire without that, even if you have fawning press coverage.

That being said, retail campaigning skills are not particularly useful for a national general election campaign. I think he's a much weaker candidate than many think he is.

[Brett Bellmore]

"If he had to run against anybody but the 2nd coming of George McGovern, he'd be so doomed.

So you're saying he's doomed, then?"

You don't think he's McGovern redux, then? The ADA thinks otherwise...

I think it's hilarious: Democrats have gone to enormous effort to run from your position on gun control, complete with fake 'pro-gun' front groups being set up to say Democrats are ok on the issue, and here you're about to nominate a candidate who's on record wanting to ban all semi-automatic firearms, and who wants a national ban on concealed carry. (A policy democratically adopted in 44 of the 50 states.)

And when do you do this? When the 2nd amendment is going to be put front and center during the middle of the campaign, because of the Heller case. Way to go, geniuses!

And that's just one issue where the guy is out of the mainstream.

I've said this before: This election is a race to the bottom, between candidates battling to see who can lose least bad. You Dems sure are doing a good job right now of giving McCain the chance for victory he, by rights, never should have gotten in sight of.

[Mark Kawakamo]

I completely agree. I figure primaries are like basketball playoffs. The tougher the struggle to win, the sharper the eventual nominee is as a campaigner. On the Dem side, we've seen Obama make Clinton a better speaker, while Clinton has made Obama a better debater. Both have become amazing at making their case.

Meanwhile, the only thing McCain has really learned is how to wait for inexperienced campaigners to flame out.

[Anarch]

You don't think he's McGovern redux, then? The ADA thinks otherwise...

No, the ADA gave Obama a score of 100% liberal. There's a huge freaking difference between that and McGovern redux, although I grant that our comprehension of the liberal side of the spectrum has become so attenuated that even John McCain is sometimes mistaken for one.

[And watch them try to paint Bush as a liberal, too, it's fascinating. Digby was right: conservatism never fails, it is only failed.]

This election is a race to the bottom, between candidates battling to see who can lose least bad. You Dems sure are doing a good job right now of giving McCain the chance for victory he, by rights, never should have gotten in sight of.

Bollocks. You'd say the same thing about any Democrat worth his or her salt; just admit that, as a basically single issue voter -- guns, plus or minus taxes -- your perceptions of the race don't really track with, well, anything.

And ftr, of course the Republican base is rallying around the (presumed) nominee. He's Not Liberal. He's Not Democrat. What more do they need to know in order to vote for him? As if the occupant of the empty suit were going to make any difference. They're delusional extremists, who else were they going to vote for? And how else could they possibly vote except by screaming obscenities at the other candidate? It was a done deal from the moment the 2008 election began in 2004.

[Jeff]

Kerry ran a strong, disciplined primary campaign in 2004.

Not that I saw. He let the SwiftBoat Liars get all over him, when he should have learned from Gore that some form of nasty lie was coming. He should have done more to ensure clean voting, when he knew that the Repubs would pull any nasty trick they could.

In short, he ram a campaign from 1996, not from 2004.

[Slartibartfast]

The ADA thinks otherwise

Only four out of five dentists, though.

[Gary Farber]

Kerry ran a strong, disciplined primary campaign in 2004.

Not that I saw. He let the SwiftBoat Liars get all over him[....]

Approximately which week of the primary campaign did they start that, would you say?

"He should have done more to ensure clean voting, when he knew that the Repubs would pull any nasty trick they could."

Which specific Democratic primaries did the Republicans pull nasty tricks in, and what were they?

[John Thullen]

McCain is a brave, heroic man, no doubt, but McGovern flew many more successful and critical missions in war and saved more American bacon and blood than any so-called conservative patriot in, I don't know, 230 years.

I say that with full credit to the senior Bush, Jimmy Stewart, and Duke Cunningham.

The only difference was that McGovern thought maybe we blowhard civilians should pay for the war effort with our hard-earned tax dollars, especially the ones I earn from my Lockheed Martin capital gains.

The others thought they were fighting for free freedom.

I'm only kidding about Jimmy Stewart. He had class.

As to the "fake" pro-gun front groups, as long as liberals have real guns, we're safe from Frenchy Lapierre's "real" pro-gun outfit, which is little more than a group of paunchy loud-mouths picking buckshot out of their squirrel cutlets while they clutch their weapons, I mean, their guns, which are for fun.

[Jeff]

No, the ADA gave Obama a score of 100% liberal.

Why do we care who the American Dental Association thinks is most liberal? Does Obama have a position on ceramic vs metal fillings I wasn't aware of?

Dang, Slarti got there first.

And I missed the "primary" on my previous comment. I think I'm done for a while...

[Gary Farber]

"McCain is a brave, heroic man, no doubt, but McGovern flew many more successful and critical missions in war and saved more American bacon and blood than any so-called conservative patriot in, I don't know, 230 years."

I have to say that while I'm not sure what definition of "conservative patriot" John is using, that that's a claim unlikely to be supportable.

George McGovern flew 35 combat missions, piloting a B-24 Liberator as part of the Fifteen Air Force.

[...] McGovern was awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for saving his crew by crash landing his damaged bomber on a small Mediterranean island. McGovern's wartime service is at the center of Stephen E. Ambrose's book The Wild Blue[2], which the author dedicated to McGovern's wife Eleanor.

However, given the vast number of bomber and fighter pilots who have served in combat in the U.S. Army Air Force and Air Force, and the fact that innumerable of them would or would have identified as "conservative patriots," it seems entirely certain that a considerable number would have served over 35 missions.

And while Duke Cunningham was a scum of a politician, and perhaps of a human being (it's really not for me to judge that), in fairness:

[...] He was one of the most highly decorated United States Navy pilots in the Vietnam War, receiving the Navy Cross once, the Silver Star twice, the Air Medal 15 times, and the Purple Heart for wounds he received under enemy fire.

Although quotas for missions served before one could rotate out have varied a lot over the years, during WWII it was common, at some points and places, for 50 missions served to be the number. 35 is admirable, but not at all exceptional.

[Slartibartfast]

George H. W. Bush flew 58 combat missions in WWII, just as a data point.

Not that numbers tell the whole story, or even a large part of it.

[Jeff]

Coming back to say that I don't think Kerry ran all that great of a primary either. His main opposition, Dean, was removed for him by media manipulation [*] -- mostly with the so-called "Dean Scream", which, in context, wasn't anything worth mentioning.

After that, Kerry got star treatment in the press, with Edwards largely relegated to Kusinich territory. It wasn't a matter of Kerry's strong campaign so much as everyone else's weak one.

[*] Since Gore was largely unopposed, he didn't get bushwhacked during the primary season. So I don't think Dean was prepared for the hatchet jobs to come so early. Still makes me mad that he was forced out over something so trivial.

[Slartibartfast]

Cunningham flew 300 combat missions, according to Wikipedia. Yeesh.

He was a fighter/ground attack jock, though, while Bush and McGovern flew two completely different sorts of bombers on completely different kinds of missions. Again, numbers aren't a good indication.

[Gary Farber]

"Cunningham flew 300 combat missions, according to Wikipedia. Yeesh."

Usually I get your sense of humor, but not always.

[John Thullen]

Well, I could seek refuge in the full "so-called conservative patriot" quote rather than merely "conservative patriot", but of course you are correct, Gary.

But I view our effort here as a communal (oops!) effort wherein I sweep in with a rough approximation of reading the Riot Act or aerial carpet bombing to stun the target, and you follow with the detail work and the mopping up in the form of addenda, footnotes, deep background, afterwords, warnings to minors, exceptions, qualifiers, disclaimers, small print, punctuation, and the, uh, facts.

I guess I might rephrase to "McGovern flew as many or more critical missions in war and saved as much American bacon and blood than most so-called conservative patriots who have mistaken having the cojones to do one's duty in harm's way for having the correct political proscriptions for America on the home front."

I wasn't slighting Cunningham for his military achievements, but it is amusing that watching his career is like watching "The Dirty Dozen" in reverse, wherein military heros are considered prime material for criminality and jail.

Not by the way that Brett himself, the human being, is a target, just some of Brett's comments which approximate aerial bombing from the other side. I think Brett mentioned on a previous thread that he takes some little pills to counter clinical depression, and you have some experience, from what you have said, with similar little pills, so maybe the three of us can get together and exchange our little pills and see who gets happier faster.

;)

[Brett Bellmore]

John, if a new 'pro-choice' organization popped up out of nowhere, and began promoting the idea that the right to life movement's legislative agenda was perfectly reasonable... If on investigation it developed that the new org's domain name had been registered by the RNC's PR firm, and it's offices were in the same office building as the RNC... And that Terry Randal was on the board of directors... You'd probably reasonably infer that it was a Republican front organization.

So, when the AHSA appears out of nowhere to start defending gun control proposals as reasonable, domain name registered by the DNC's PR firm, offices in the same building as the DNC, and board of directors made up of former board members of Handgun Control, Inc., I think I may fairly describe it as a front group.

My point here is that the Democratic party has expended a great deal of effort in the last decade, trying to create the impresion that's it's given up on radical gun control. And you're about to nominate a Presidential candidate who's on record in favor of proposals Chuck Schumer would probably blanch at. Are you having a bit of trouble remembering why Gore couldn't carry his home state, perhaps?

McCain ought, in any reasonable world, to have no hope of winning the election. I think the Democratic party is about to give him that hope.

[publius]

brett - the winner-takes-all point was a good one. i should have included that

[Anarch]

Only four out of five dentists, though.

I confess, it took me about five "ADA"s before I figured out which one Brett was talking about...

[Garth]

i think mccain is going to get crushed in the general election by a landslide.

obama will crush him in the debates and benefit from high dem and independent voter turnout maximized by a well oiled field operation and tons of enthusiastic support.

the rw noise machine will give MacCain their half hearted support and do what they can to put up a good front, but this will be a blowout. complete and utter repudiation of the GOP. the 2006 elections only released some of the pressure building from the general loathing for bush. for good or bad, the dems failure in congress to repudiate bush has allowed pressure for change to rebuild and is now ready to blow open the 2008 election.

mccain is running as an extension of bush who is detested by the voters... the same voters that think bush is wrong on war, economy, security, healthcare, education, energy, global warming, the environment, ethics... just FUNDAMENTALLY wrong on everything.

the good ship MacTanic is going down all hands on deck...

the only question remaining is how much of the "Maverick's" reputation will remain, perhaps to float on the surface like an oily stain marking the total tanking of his campaign.

tpm's headline summed it up nicely;

Lobbyist Hatin' McCain Surrounded by Lobbyists.

It's gonna be a long year on the McPain Train.

[Jeff]

I confess, it took me about five "ADA"s before I figured out which one Brett was talking about...

Jack McCoy and his equals rated Obama as 100% liberal!

(I'm still not sure which ADA Brett is referencing.)

[gwangung]

Jack McCoy and his equals rated Obama as 100% liberal!

Jill Hennessey, Carey Lowell, Angie Harmon, Elisabeth Rohm, Annie Parisse, Alana de la Garza and Stephanie March?

Pretty good posse of endorsers....

[Gary Farber]

"I'm still not sure which ADA Brett is referencing."

This one.

[Gary Farber]

However, the ADA gave Obama a 75% rating for 2007.

[Brett Bellmore]

"However, the ADA gave Obama a 75% rating for 2007."

Yeah, it's pretty much SOP for somebody as far out of the political mainstream as Obama to start toning things down in advance of a Presidential run. It doesn't fool anybody who doesn't want to be fooled, but they always try it anyway.

[Jeff]

Jill Hennessey, Carey Lowell, Angie Harmon, Elisabeth Rohm, Annie Parisse, Alana de la Garza and Stephanie March?

Jill Hennessey was awesome on L&O. Too bad that didn't carry over to "Crossing Jordan". But Elizabeth Rohm thinks Obama is liberal because she is a lesbian! (Is this because I'm a lesbian" has to rank with "My ox is broken! This is bulls--t!" as one of the "The Stupid! It Burns!" lines of all time.)

[Anarch]

Yeah, it's pretty much SOP for somebody as far out of the political mainstream as Obama...

Except that Obama isn't actually outside the political mainstream. He's on the left side of [the American] center, sure, but most everything he's saying falls within mainstream discourse. It's going to seem like extremism to the Republican base, of course... but then, what won't?

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty much everything he's saying now is mainstream. You don't have to go back many years before that changes. I tend to assume that the man didn't change, he just started watching what he said after he got serious about running for President.

And, yeah, I realize that you can define "mainstream" in such a way as to include everything Obama has ever said... And in so doing, render the concept meaningless by becoming all inclusive.

[hilzoy]

Brett: can you give examples of his non-mainstreaminess?

[Brett Bellmore]

Well, as recently as 2004, he was advocating a national ban on concealed carry, to over-ride the democratically enacted laws of super-majority of the states containing most of the nation's population. Not just being opposed to concealed carry, but wanting the federal government to abolish it against the will of the states, strikes me as pretty radical.

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, by the way, John, I wouldn't describe 400 mg SAMe, 2-3 times a day, as "little pills". Pretty honking big pills, actually. Combined with a teaspoon a day of codliver oil. Anti-depressants plus Omega 3 fatty acids have been demonstrated to promote the growth of new brain cells.

[liberal japonicus]

Brett, I linked to this site earlier, so apologies if I am repeating, but it doesn't have anything about Obama being against concealed carry and he actually voted to let retired police carry concealed handguns.

[hilzoy]

Brett: thanks. That doesn't seem like a major policy to me, but I'm sure opinions vary.

OT: check out this link on early voting in TX. Short version: a whole lot of it. Apparently, they have figures for the first 3 days of early voting in previous elections. Republicans are way up over previous years. Democrats are three times as much way up. Figures for Harris county, just b/c it's the first one:

Republicans
Harris 04 -- 1,929
Harris 06 -- 1,194
Harris 08 -- 8,886

Democrats

Harris 04 -- 2,392
Harris 06 -- 1,379
Harris 08 -- 26,729

Yow.

[Gary Farber]

This would concern me:

[...] In an extensive MEDLINE search on SAMe, Kagan found induction of mania in one patient out of fifteen treated with parenteral SAMe. In the same review, Lipinski found the apparent induction of mania in two patients with bipolar disorder (total of nine depressed patients studied).

One out of fifteen isn't all that low. And mania isn't well self-diagnosed. (As my father had innumerable major episodes, I'm extremely familiar with this.)

[liberal japonicus]

Sorry, I should have done a bit more searching. I think what you may be referring to is this, but it seems very poorly sourced. A google search turns up a lot of links, unfortunately to Ron Paul fan sites and the like. The source for that assertion seems to be a 20 Feb 2004 ChiTrib article, but a search of the archives seems to turn up no articles at or near that date. Also, the ChiTrib's summary of the candidate's positions does not include Obama holding that, which is strange if the paper reported it.

[felixculpa]

Aw, Gary you terminated a perfectly good running joke, Associated Dubliners Anonymous?
Re NYT indiscretion; understanding I myself don’t have a balanced view and confuse candor with awkward disclosure (thinking the former, doing the latter)— maybe it reminded you too clearly of K. Starr’s contortions? I could see that, but then I don’t want another Bill almost as much as I don’t want another Dubya, which I think is a thoroughly public-spirited sentiment. Is this sort of thing preferably kept under wraps? Seemed to me they were at pains to verify. Also assuming we’re referring to the same story, involving aides pleading for avoidance of potential sexual scandal.
Re Fighter McCain; it’s not as if he looked his enemy in the eye before he crashed. Several hundred to several thousand relatively safe feet away. Ultimately not, of course. But not Homeric in scale.
Re the Murdoch Method™; last I checked the technical term yellow journalism is coming up on its sesquicentennial.
Re gun control; I was troubled last night by the report that Obama had appended to a speech in Wisconsin in which he spoke of the SIU tragedy, that his prayers were with the bereaved, but...he still advocated Second Amendment rights for the individual (as opposed to citizen militias). A friendly poster sent me here.
A superior piece im(h)o. As I had hoped, his position is based on his Constitutional scholarship. I feared it suggested NRA tentacles. That’s likely the main factor in any ADA shortfall/disagreement.
Loosely in this context it may be instructive to contrast the two opposed triangulations. Clinton’s is widely seen as cynical and Obama’s is widely seen as generous. I imagine the term is not applied to Obama’s strategy because it’s so clearly a world away from the Clintonian usage to which we are accustomed.
Finally, exuberant applause for the John and Gary show; both entertainment and light-hearted enlightenment.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, it's not a treatment for bipolar disorder, it's a general mood elevator, you'd kind of expect it to put somebody who was bipolar into their manic phase. And it doesn't interact well with MAO inhibitors. OTOH, the usual anti-depressants don't do squat for arthritis. ;)

LJ, http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/issues.gun.html>CNN seems to have noticed. But I got it from http://www.icadp.org/page236.html>here.

[yoyo]

Elisabeth Rohm has to be the most wooden actor i have ever seen on screen. I'm kind of amazed every time i see her.

[yoyo]

Almost any antidepressant can induce mania. Exceptions might be mood stabilizer type antidepressant things like lithium or w-3 oils.

[felix culpa]

Oh, &
Remember the Keating Five!

[Tom Maguire]

He doesn't really have the knack of connecting with people.

Nonsense - an inability to wow an audience of 1,000 can be distinct from an ability to, for example, charm hungry press packs for days, months, or years.

One of the many things I love about the Obama-fawning is that no one ever expresses concern that their guy, for all his marvelous speechifying and improved debating, is unwilling/unable to sit in the back of the damn bus and talk to the press.

And McCain, for all his lackluster speaking and insufficient grasp of policy is able to do just that for hours at a time.

For my money, that bodes poorly for Obama in the general election - if he is so smart, smooth and knowledgable, why can't he even talk to the press like this doddering old Republican fool? Eventually (OK, maybe Jan 21, 2009) the press may wonder about that very question. Right now, since Hillary won't talk either, it is not a point of differentiation on the Dem side.

[Ugh]

And McCain, for all his lackluster speaking and insufficient grasp of policy is able to do just that for hours at a time.

And I'm sure those hours of conversations consist of aggressive and on the record questioning by a skeptical press corps, who are knowledgable about the issues and follow up during the next "back of the damn bus"* questioning. Or, could be, he's feeding them off the record Capitol hill gossip and talking about the NFL.

*I'll ignore the obvious cheap shot, here.

[gwangung]

Elisabeth Rohm has to be the most wooden actor i have ever seen on screen.

Well, I thought Alana de la Garza was, until I saw she could actually project a personality; apparently, when she was on CIS: Miami, she had a contractual stipulation to give up all of her screen personality to David Caruso...

[Gary Farber]

"...she had a contractual stipulation to give up all of her screen personality to David Caruso..."

This cracks me up.

He's so profound.

[liberal japonicus]

Brett,
you may want to reconsider. That article you cite does not seem to be in the Chicago Tribune archive at all and I can't see how CNN is backing up this.

Of course I'd be surprised if people didn't think there should be some nationwide policy parameters, but on the basic fact of what Obama's policy is, I think this is something ginned up by people who have ulterior motives. YMMV of course

[Gary Farber]

"That article you cite does not seem to be in the Chicago Tribune archive at all"

Except for here.

[felix culpa]

Hey that Cruso guy sure got rhythm eh? Got that sunglass thang down. The pregnant pause is maybe a teensy-weensy bit driveltive? I keep thinking of robots, but I can’t quite pin it down — yet. Give me — time.
I mean, isn’t he, just, so — cool?
Hey! I got it! Th Prezninnt!

[liberal japonicus]

Strange, it doesn't come up in the web archive
here or when you use the advanced search. I also searched under the writer's name (David Mendell) and it didn't come up.

[Gary Farber]

"Strange, it doesn't come up"

I searched in the archive under the author's name, for a week's range around Feb 20, 2004, and there it was along with the rest of David Mendell's articles.

The trick is to not give up if the first few methods fail.

[Brett Bellmore]

Felix, Obama's embrace of the 2nd amendment as an individual right is nothing for advocates of gun control to get their panties in a wad about. He's a member of the "It's an individual right, and the government can violate it whenever it's got a good excuse." school of thought. As someone who's on record as thinking that D.C.'s gun ban is consistent with an individual right to own firearms, it's hard to imagine a gun control law he'd think would violate such a right.

IOW, don't confuse empty rhetoric with actual policy. Obama is about as anti-gun as they get.

[russell]

Felix, Obama's embrace of the 2nd amendment as an individual right is nothing for advocates of gun control to get their panties in a wad about.

Hey Brett --

Can I shout "fire" in a crowded theater?

Thanks -

[Brett Bellmore]

If it's on fire? Absolutely!

[russell]

If it's on fire? Absolutely!

Precisely. Otherwise, not.

When conditions that are the firearm equivalent of being in a crowded, burning theater generally prevail, I'll be happy to entertain the idea that there ought not be any constraint on the individual right to keep and bear arms. In fact, you might see me at the K-Mart loading up on ammo.

Until then, not. And we should all hope that they never come to be.

Thanks -

[gwangung]

When conditions that are the firearm equivalent of being in a crowded, burning theater generally prevail, I'll be happy to entertain the idea that there ought not be any constraint on the individual right to keep and bear arms. In fact, you might see me at the K-Mart loading up on ammo.

Meh.

My personal barometer is if the normal operation of a weapon means there's a high degree of collateral damage, then the weapon should be regulated. Or, at least, charges of reckless endangerment should be considered. You have the right to self defense, but not necessarily the use of a weapon that could easily punch through your attacker AND a wall AND through the person next door.

[flyerhawk]

Brett,

IOW, don't confuse empty rhetoric with actual policy. Obama is about as anti-gun as they get.

This is an.... ironic statement. What, precisely, are the ACTUAL policies that he has proposed, implemented, sponsored, co-sponsored, etc., that restrict gun rights? Since we are talking about actual policy that should be pretty easy to find?

Or did you inadvertently flip words in your sentence and you mean to say "Don't confuse empty policies with actual rhetoric"?

[russell]

My personal barometer is if the normal operation of a weapon means there's a high degree of collateral damage, then the weapon should be regulated.

My personal barometer would likely be stricter than that, but I'd be happy to settle for yours.

The point I was trying to make, however clumsily, is that while the rights guaranteed in the Constitution are inalienable, they are not unfettered. We recognize and accept legal limitations on their exercise.

Freedom of speech is not license to yell "fire" in a crowded theater.

The right to keep and carry is not license to own and operate any form of ordinance, regardless of any actual need or purpose.

And, yes, it's that damned government that gets to draw the line between legitimate and illegitimate exercise of those rights.

Thanks -

[Gary Farber]

"My personal barometer is if the normal operation of a weapon means there's a high degree of collateral damage, then the weapon should be regulated."

That would seem to mean that very few weapons less powerful than an RPG would be regulated. Few small arms would be.

Possibly you mean "My personal barometer is if the normal operation of a weapon means there's a high chance of collateral damage, then the weapon should be regulated."

Because generally speaking, if you point a gun at something, and fire it normally, there isn't going to be collateral damage of any sort.

I haven't fired a real gun since I a child, and I've only fired a couple of hundred rounds as a child, but I'm quite sure I caused no collateral damage of any sort.

I'm not clear that you're actually trying to argue that small arms, which cause no collateral damage in the course of normally operating them, should be free of regulation. Regulating by degree of possible danger, on the other hand, is what we tend to do.

"You have the right to self defense, but not necessarily the use of a weapon that could easily punch through your attacker AND a wall AND through the person next door."

I'm not sure how that connects to your previous sentence, but you're saying that there should be no regulation of low-power guns, or silenced guns, then?

[gwangung]

Possibly you mean "My personal barometer is if the normal operation of a weapon means there's a high chance of collateral damage, then the weapon should be regulated."

Probably a better way of putting it.

I'm not sure how that connects to your previous sentence, but you're saying that there should be no regulation of low-power guns, or silenced guns, then?

Well, I should clarify that's not my only criterion--but it's something I start from.

[Jeff]

she had a contractual stipulation to give up all of her screen personality to David Caruso...

Didn't work. The "Sunglasses of Justice" (copyright TWoP) have more personality. Also, he's no Lennie Brisco!

[trilobite]

There is a point from the Silveira case, 312 F.3d 1052 (9th Cir. 2002) that I think deserves wider circulation:

Historical research shows that the use of the term "bear arms" generally referred to the carrying of arms in military service -- not the private use of arms for personal purposes.

I.e., the 2d Amendment may guarantee some sort of individual right to "keep" arms (which might still allow the state to, for instance, require you to "keep" your weapons in a locker at the local police station) -- but it does NOT guarantee a right to carry the arms, because "bear arms" does not mean "carry arms."

This makes much more sense if you remember that the application of the Bill of Rights to State governments is very recent, and when passed the BoR was meant to limit the power of the federal government to meddle in State affairs. So the Second Amendment prevents the federal government from prohibiting state militia formation, and maybe from confiscating guns outright or prohibiting all sale of guns. It does not make us powerless to stop a teenage drug addict from toting a rifle around on the street.

[gwangung]

Didn't work. The "Sunglasses of Justice" (copyright TWoP) have more personality

Yah. He's like a personality black hole. (Or maybe afraid of competition from anyone who wasn't as stiff as a board)(like I said, surprised as hell when I saw de le Garza could actually project a personality...figured she was on it purely for the eye candy).

Also, he's no Lennie Brisco!

Well, who is? (And certainly can't sing and dance with any of 'em....)

[Brett Bellmore]

I'd be a bit more impressed with Judge Reinhardt's standards of historical research, if he hadn't had to yank the opinion to edit out all references to his reliance on the notorious historical fraud perpetrated by Bellesiles. (And he'd written it after Bellesiles was exposed!) In fact, there are numerous contemporary examples of the term "bear arms" being used in a civilian context to mean carrying them. Even in statutes regulating hunting...

[Jesurgislac]

Oh, this is interesting. Glenn Greenwald on McCain, John Hagee, and Donahue.

Still more interesting: the media, which lapped up everything Donahue had to say about a pair of feminist bloggers who were working for John Edwards, and gave Donahue primetime news to denounce a statue of Jesus, made of chocolate... is evidently really not interested in giving Donahue a platform to rant at McCain for enthusiastically embracing Pastor Hagee (11 hits on GoogleNews) though plenty of space to talk about what it means that Louis Farrakhan supported Obama (1,338 hits).