Just when McCain thought he was out...
John McCain was working hard yesterday to separate himself from George W. Bush, and, at least rhetorically, he was doing a decent job. But in the end, he could not escape the failed president's potentially deadly embrace.
D
Just when McCain thought he was out...
Dick Polman, Inquirer National Political Columnist
John McCain was working hard yesterday to separate himself from George W. Bush, and, at least rhetorically, he was doing a decent job. But in the end, he could not escape the failed president's potentially deadly embrace.
During a speech in swing-state Ohio - where it is essential that McCain remove his ball and chain, lest he lose his opportunity to draw independent voters in November - he repeatedly signaled his intention to govern in ways that bear no resemblance to the infamous Bush style:
1. "If I am elected president, I will work with anyone who sincerely wants to get this country moving again. I will listen to any idea that is offered in good faith..."
Translation: He Who Shall Not Be Named has refused to listen to outside advice, which is one reason the country is not moving forward.
2. "I will seek the counsel of members of Congress of both parties in forming government policy before I ask them to support it. I will ask Democrats to serve in my administration."
Translation: He Who Shall Not Be Named has sought to govern by partisan fiat, freezing out the other party, which over the pst eight years has represented roughly half the American people. I won't do that.
3. "My administration will set a new standard for transparency and accountability. I will hold weekly press conferences."
Translation: He Who Shall Not Be Named has been secretive and unaccountable, refusing to communicate with the American people or to respect the free press. I will be different.
4. "When we make errors, I will confess them readily, and explain what we intend to do to correct them."
Translation: He Who Shall Not Be Named has repeatedly refused to 'fess up when he screws up. I will.
5. "I will ask Congress to grant me the privilege of coming before both houses to take questions, and address criticism, much the same as the Prime Minister of Great Britain appears regularly before the House of Commons."
Translation: He Who Shall Not Be Named, comfortably situated inside his bubble, has repeatedly treated a co-equal branch of government with unprecedented disdain. I will pierce that bubble.
All told, that was pretty strong stuff. It's hard to know, of course, whether McCain would actually do everything he promised, but, at least in terms of stump rhetoric, those passages were a decent counterweight to the Democratic charge that McCain is just the equivalent of a third Bush term. So far, so good...until...
...Until Bush opened his mouth in Israel.
As we all know by now, the president, while addressing the Knesset on the occasion of Israel's 60th anniversary as a nation, equated Barack Obama and the Democrats with Nazi appeasers on the eve of World War II. He never uttered Obama's name, but, as the White House later confirmed to CNN, he fully intended the insinuation:
"Some seem to believe that we should negotiate with the terrorists and radicals...We have heard this foolish delusion before. As Nazi tanks crossed into Poland in 1939, an American senator declared, 'Lord if only I could have talked to Hitler, all of this might have been avoided.' We have an obligation to call this what it is - the false comfort of appeasement, which has been repeatedly discredited by history."
I won't dwell on the irony that we again are being lectured on foreign policy by the architect (or front man) of what is clearly one of the worst foreign policy regimes in American history. I don't even want to debate whether it is appropriate for a president to launch a domestic political attack while supposedly practicing statecraft on foreign soil. I want to get right to McCain.
When asked yesterday whether he agreed with Bush, he really had no choice about how to respond. Notwithstanding his words of separation in Ohio, he had to embrace his leader. No Republican running for president can afford to defy the commander in chief and insist that, actually, no, it is wrong to equate the Democrats with appeasers of Nazism. Doing that would risk angering the conservative GOP base.
And so McCain replied that Bush was "exactly right" about the perils of talking to bad guys, and that Obama "needs to explain" why he desires to sit down and talk with bad guys, especially those who have been "directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans."
The problem is, anybody who embraces Bush, at least on this issue, automatically becomes detached from factual reality. Because here's the thing:
Just 48 hours ago, Defense secretary Robert Gates - this is Bush's own guy - voiced a willingness to negotiate with the bad guys in Iran. He said in a speech to retired diplomats that it is important "to sit down and talk with them. If there is going to be a discussion, then they need something, too. We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander, with them not feeling that they need anything from us."
America can't be "completely the demander"? America needs to meet with bad guys and engage in give and take? Sounds like a Nazi appeaser to me.
And consider General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker. They've been talking to Iranian officials for months. They too must be the equivalent of Nazi appeasers.
And let's not forget Colin Powell and James Baker (the co-chair of the Iraq Study Group, and in an earlier incarnation, the Republican lawyer who helped put Bush in the White House with his maneuvers in Florida). They too have long suggested the increased use of diplomacy as a tool to deal with the bad guys. I guess they too must be the equivalent of Nazi appeasers. And the same must be true for ex-senior Bush national security advisor Brent Scowcroft, since he too has called for diplomacy. And the same must be true for Henry Kissinger; he negotiated directly with the Vietnamese communists - even though they were (borrowing McCain's words) "directly responsible for the deaths of brave young Americans."
And it gets even worse: McCain himself has advocated talking to bad guys. When asked during a 2006 interview, on Sky News (the British all-news TV network), whether American diplomats should talk to Hamas, in the wake of the terrorist group's electoral takeover of the Palestinian government, McCain replied in the affirmative: "They're the government. Sooner or later we're going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy to Hamas because of their dedication to violence...But it's a new reality in the Middle East." (The video is available here.)
So you see the big problem for McCain. Embracing Bush is the antithesis of straight talk. Any time he feels obligated to go to bat for the president, he risks sharing the same bubble, where insinuations reign and facts are fungible - to the point where he even has to renounce his own previous words. He would be far better served if Bush said as little as possible between now and November, lest he again be lured back into the fold.
Which merely reminds me of Michael Corelone's lament, as he sought to go legit during Godfather III: "Just when I thought I was out, they pulled me back in."
-------
A postscript: Who was that American senator, anyway? The one cited by Bush for having whined, "Lord, if only I could have talked to Hitler..."? Surely it must have been some weak-kneed Democrat. To satisfy my curiousity, I did a spot of checking.
And guess what: the wimp turns out to be...a Republican.
Senator William Borah was a GOP isolationist who opposed U.S. entry into World War II - a war, if I recall correctly, that was prosecuted by a Democrat, Franklin D. Roosevelt.
Funny how Bush neglected to mention any of that. And he was merely recycling the Borah line anyway. His ex-war team leader, Donald Rumsfeld, used the same quote in a speech during the summer of 2006. And Rummy somehow omitted Borah's name and affiliation, as well.
No wonder two-thirds of the American people are counting down the days to Jan. 20.
The biggest problem that McCain, Gates, and the others have is that they persist in the delusion that Bush actually thinks before he talks. Or that Bush thinks at all. So every time they try to help themselves, Bush keeps throwing them under the bus. Maybe he is being paid by the Dems - if not, he should be, as he is doing everything he can to give them both the Presidency and total control of Congress (including a filibuster-proof Senate) come November. Keep talking, Mr. President - you're doing a hellava job.— what is truth?- McCain had to make a choice. Whether to embrace He who must not be named, or fess up that he also said we have to sit down and talk with our enemies. Straight talk my a...— SteveMG
- I really think Bush was talking about Carter and Hamas, but once again, Barry has to go one defensive. He stated that he thinks his middle name would be a plus in the Arab world, yet his wife freaks out everytime somebody mentions it. You can't have it both ways. I hope he wins, just so all of you get a nice big taste of tax and spend big gov't liberalism. But then again thats assuming most of you work for a living. Silly me.— beeron
- Beeron, can you possibly be suggesting that after the past seven years of spending like a drunken sailor, that the DEMOCRATIC party is the party of fiscal irresponsibility? Silly you, indeed...— Rich LeBlanc
- If Bush keeps opening his mouth & making John McCain defend him, we won't have to worry about a 3rd Bush term. The GOP better start looking for deals on meeting rooms for early 2009, because after they get their clocks cleaned in the election, they'll have time to sit down & recreate their new party brand they know they need.— yobill626
- I am continually amazed how far this newspaper goes to put down Republicans, while turning a blind eye to the crooked ways of the Democrats that have run the city into the ground.— TheRock2020
- Three of Bush's bigger legislative accomplishments/attempts have been Medicare Prescription Drugs, No Child Left Behind, and Immigration Reform. All three were written in coordination with the Democrat party, and two were passed I believe when the Democrats controlled the Senate (2001-2003). And let us not forget the Democrats who voted for the Iraq Authorization. So, tell me again how Bush has shut out the Democrat party and failed to "reach across the aisle". As for appeasement, Obama once said he would talk to our enemies with no preconditions. Bush and many Presidents before him said they would talk with Hamas/Hezbollah if the renounced violence and acknowledged Israel's right to exist. As for Iran, we would speak with them if they stopped their nuclear programs and allowed inspections. We speak to them indirectly about Iran, and we've used Kerry's friends in France and Germany to negotiate with Iran. But Bush set preconditions....Obama would not. That is the difference. And the White House has not indicated it was Obama they were mentioning, but Jimmy Carter. Get it right please.— tom - wilmington, de
Comment removed.- LONDON – Libya is preparing for defense cooperation talks with the United States, leading to a visit by President Bush early next year. Libyan officials said the United States has agreed to review Tripoli's defense requirements in wake of an agreement by Col. Moammar Khaddafy to eliminate his nation's medium-range missile and weapons of mass destruction arsenal. The officials said the two countries plan to begin formal talks on Libya's defense and security requirements over the next few months. Obama's advisers can't google Bush talks to Libya???— Tageman
- Comparing, directly or indirectly Iran to the Nazis, is simply irresponsible rhetoric. Iran has not annexed territory, conducted experiments on human beings, or run concentration camps. McCain not taking Bush to task for his outrageous statements unfortunately shows the degree to which McCain is dominated by George W. Bush. Resolve in dealing with Iran is vital in terms of their nuclear intentions and subversive activities. Bush's statements strike me as a near declaration of war on Iran. The political situation in Iran is not exactly stable. Most of what Obama proposes I do not like at all. However, foreign policy management is the most important role of a president. On this score, Obama has the clear edge. This is truely a rotten election year.— Peter of Manassas
- I'm still waiting for Polman's ONE, SINGLE article that looks at Obama with a critical eye. That article is coming, right Polman? (Silence...) Right?— chrissmith
- I'm an Obama supporter through and through. but i don't necessarily dislike McCain and i'm kinda sick of people pretending he's the next GW Bush. That's alot of nonsense and i'm ashamed when Obama stoops to that level because he's above that and it represents the politics that he's so against. A McCain presidency would be a helluva lot better than Bush. Probably alot better than hillary too. she's secretive and shady just like w.— Ryan
- Wow Tom, it must have really hurt when you wrote that check to Obama. That's alright, we knew you were joking. Whatever gets you through the moment. I thought you hated McCain man, what happened?— p-diddy
- Diddy, I am no fan of McCain, but I also dislike when politicians and columnists misquote, misrepresent, misstate, misreport. Obama either has a massive ego thinking Bush was speaking solely about him, or he must be insecure in his foreigh policy stance. Funny, when I saw him today on MSNBC speaking to reporters, he was wearing a flag lapel pin, and he said he would meet with Iran with no pre-conditions, but would state to Iran that he wanted them to stop funding Hamas/Hezbollah, stop threatening Israel, and stop their nuclear programs or they would continue with the sanctions and isolation. THAT IS EXACTLY THE LINE BUSH HAS HELD WITH THEM FOR HOW MANY YEARS NOW!!!!!! I guess the difference is Bush is saying it through the media, the United Nations (the Democrat party's best friends), and France/Germany. Obama would say it directly to Ahmadinejad. Wow, tough foreign policy stance he is taking there.....lots of originality and courage. I really do not know where to vote this November. I heard 30% of Democrats want HRC to run as third party candidate. Maybe I'll vote for her.— tom - wilmington, de
- And what hurts the most is realizing just how much beer I could have bought with that money I sent to Obama...and I mean the good stuff, not either that Coors Light or Miller Lite or Corona with a lime in it that Liberal Democrats drink.— tom - wilmington, de
- Ryan, an Obama supporter? Sounds like you are a McCain appeaser. McCain is just like bush. He has switched positions so many times on so many subjects, he can't rememebr what he originally said. And repubs caled Kerry a flip-flopper. Just what level is Obama stooping to? He is not supposed to answer scurrilous charges by bush and Mccain? Just be a nice guy while mr straight talk equates him with Hamas and bush equates him with nazi appeasers (mostly republicans back then-look it up. Hell, Mr Republican, Wm Howard Taft, the day after Pearl Harbor, voted against going to war. Probably afraid that repubs would get drafted.).— mike l
- Tom, discounting saying something directly as opposed to through channels, especially with and egomaniac like Ahmadinejad, underlines why people like you don't get it. People credit Reagan with staring down Russia (not completely true but that's for another day) by looking Krsuchev in the face and spelling out the US position. He didn't ask the UN or other nations to do it for him. Now people are making fun of Obama for saying he'll do the same thing. Amazing how people want it both ways, isn't it?!?!?— amg
- Oh and Tom, if the three "accomplishments" are the best Bush could do in nearly 8 years, he has nothing to be proud of. The drug plan stinks (as a senior citizen), NCLB is so underfunded that even the Sec of Ed stopped trying to enforce the legislation and immigration reform (really? you're hanging your hat on this one - funny) has not happened. You, a Bush supporter, cite those three failures as his biggest accomplishments speaks volumes for the depths of his failure.— amg
- Polman = Democrat stooge— fafafooey
- amg, You did not understand the meaning of my post. Those three items are big accomplishments, and they were all written by and with Democrat legislators. Kennedy wrote the NCLB law, Kennedy also (with McCain) wrote the immigration bill, and I forget who wrote it but only 32 Republican Senators voted for it, so it obviously passed with full Democrat support. I did not say these were the best accomplishments of Bush, but three of the bigger bills he either signed or attempted to get enacted into law. I was simply refuting the charge leveled that Bush did not work with Demcrats, and since all three of these bills are big spending items, it was also the Democrats who fed at the trough of big spending. So aren't these also Democrat failures, since they all got big support from Democrats in Congress? These are reasons I scoff when people label Bush a conservative...these are not conservative ideals. Now, Reagan did not stare down Kruschev....but Gorbachev...in Reykavik (sic) Iceland. It is a lot different talking with Russia than talking to Hamas or Hezbellah.....or even their chief sponsor...Iran. Last I remember, Russia was not supporting people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up innocent women and children, or talking about wiping a country off the map. And if you recall, Reagan walked out of Reykavik rather than "appease" Russia by giving in to their demands...a move for which he was villified in the media. How did that all work out in the end? Would a President Obama have done the same thing? I think not. Besides, he is flip flopping himself....did you see his lapel pin again today?— tom - wilmington, de
- amg, You did not understand the meaning of my post. Those three items are big accomplishments, and they were all written by and with Democrat legislators. Kennedy wrote the NCLB law, Kennedy also (with McCain) wrote the immigration bill, and I forget who wrote it but only 32 Republican Senators voted for it, so it obviously passed with full Democrat support. I did not say these were the best accomplishments of Bush, but three of the bigger bills he either signed or attempted to get enacted into law. I was simply refuting the charge leveled that Bush did not work with Demcrats, and since all three of these bills are big spending items, it was also the Democrats who fed at the trough of big spending. So aren't these also Democrat failures, since they all got big support from Democrats in Congress? These are reasons I scoff when people label Bush a conservative...these are not conservative ideals. Now, Reagan did not stare down Kruschev....but Gorbachev...in Reykavik (sic) Iceland. It is a lot different talking with Russia than talking to Hamas or Hezbellah.....or even their chief sponsor...Iran. Last I remember, Russia was not supporting people strapping bombs to themselves and blowing up innocent women and children, or talking about wiping a country off the map. And if you recall, Reagan walked out of Reykavik rather than "appease" Russia by giving in to their demands...a move for which he was villified in the media. How did that all work out in the end? Would a President Obama have done the same thing? I think not. Besides, he is flip flopping himself....did you see his lapel pin again today?— tom - wilmington, de
- And you STILL want to send your children to PENN? What a country!— RU4REAL
How many Americans were killed by Russians and their proxies during the Cold War? How many died by the hand of the KGB? How does Bush go to Russia and embrace the democratic ally, Putin and when he knows the Iranian Nuclear technology, missile guidance systems, and other military support come from the former KGB executive? How does he appease Russia, under the sway of former KGB stalwarts, and allow former satellite countries to fall back into the direct control of their former Soviet Masters? Appeasement has a new name and it is George W Bush.- AMG spoke about having it both ways. In 2004, Bush was criticized for not going through the UN, the French and the Germans. In 2008, he is being criticized for going thru the UN, the French and the Germans. That is having it both ways.— tom - wilmington, de
- And ya gotta love it. Obama had on his website about how he was the only candidate willing to talk to Iran et al with no preconditions. That has since been removed from his website.— tom - wilmington, de
- You didn't even mention the fact that Bush is contradicting his own administration. He wasn't talking about Obama? Yeah, ok. Your real name isn't Dana Perino is it? Way to throw in a flag pin reference too. Good to know that you've got your eye on the ball. In regard to talking with Iran, I'd say that talking could do no worse than our current policy, which has strengthened Iran. What neither McCain or Obama will say out loud is that American influence is limited. We can't stop Iran's nuclear program, unless we want to create a worse situation by invading. But what's the problem with talking? We're not obligated to give them anything. In other words, we can always tell them to get lost. You've really been twisting in the wind lately though. Now that you can't hang your hat on Operation Chaos anymore, what's left?— p-diddy
- Fernando08 --- Don't you know? If you look into Putin's eyes, you can see his soul.— yobill626
- Tom, you're right, it was Gorby, not Kruschev, my mistake. Thanks for correcting that. As for which was the greater danger, I'd say a nation hellbent on launching thousands of nuclear missiles in to our airspace and wiping us off the map (and yes, Russia threatened many times over the history of this world to "wipe us off the map") is a MUCH greater danger than a person wearing a bomb as a vest. Total nuclear annihilation as opposed to limited range of damage?!?!? But I guess that's just me. And Bush wasn't vilified for not "going through" the UN, France and Germany, he was vilified for not using them as support to leverage our position thereby creating a real coalition that actually held some sway. Now that it's far too late he wants there help. It's pretty easy to see why they aren't quick to assist. And if you really want to focus on the lapel pin then you need to get a clue as to what issues we really face. Wearing a pin after not wearing one is about as important as whether he prefers whole milk or skim milk with his cereal in the morning. Again, that's just me. You go ahead on make your decision based on a pin. I'll focus on what really matters.— amg
- Tom, You mention "No Child Left Behind" - a great idea in theory, because it is nothing more than an unfunded mandate. After its passage, Bush and the GOP majority in Congress proceeded to gut over $28M in funding, but leaving the testing requirements intact. If you have children, you would already know this, as teachers shouldn't be placed in the position of having to beg parents and administrators for basic classroom supplies. No Child Left Behind is making teachers teach to a test, not to the well-rounded education our children deserve. Immigration reform? Are you really serious? When was the last time you visited NYC and took a trip to Staten Island and the Statue of Liberty and read the quote on her base, "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free; send these, the homeless tempest-tossed to me; I lift my lamp beside the golden door." There is no sensible immigration policy right now - how else do you explain why two border patrol agents are imprisoned for performing the duty that they took an oath to perform while government prosecutors allow a drug smuggler and perjuror a free pass? You normally offer a more reasoned debate, but what are you thinking? You're dead wrong on both counts...— fuggedaboudit
Cited by the Columbia Journalism Review as one of the nation's top political reporters, and lauded by the ABC News political website as "one of the finest political journalists of his generation," Dick Polman is a national political columnist at the Philadelphia Inquirer. He is on the full-time faculty at the University of Pennsylvania, as "writer in residence." Dick has been a frequent guest on C-Span, MSNBC, CNN, NPR and the BBC. He covered the 1992, 1996, 2000, and 2004 presidential campaigns.
ARCHIVES
All commentaries posted before April 18, 2008, can be accessed at www.dickpolman.blogspot.com.
- American Spectator
- David Limbaugh
- Free Republic
- Glenn Reynolds
- Hugh Hewitt
- Human Events
- John Hawkins
- Matt Lewis
- Michelle Malkin
- National Review
- Opinion Journal
- Power Line
- Red State
- The Brody File
- The Daily Caller
- Town Hall
- Weekly Standard
- Center for American Progress
- Crooks and Liars
- Daily Kos
- David Corn
- Huffington Post
- Media Matters
- Mojoblog (Mother Jones)
- Open Left
- Political Animal
- Salon's War Room
- Talking Points Memo
- Tapped
- The Democratic Strategist
- The Grey Matter
- Unclaimed Territory
- Andrew Sullivan
- Attytood
- Chi Tribune's The Swamp
- CJR's Campaign Desk
- CNN's Political Ticker
- CQ Politics
- FactCheck.org
- Gail Collins
- Howard Kurtz
- Mickey Kaus
- NBC's First Read
- Obit
- Political Wire
- Politico
- Politics Daily
- Pollster.com
- Real Clear Politics
- The Atlantic Wire
- The Fix
- The Moderate Voice
- The Plank
- USA Today On Politics
- Wonkette
