Mallaby Loses It
I think it’s fair to say that Washington Post columnist Sebastian Mallaby has had about enough of John McCain and his mythos:
McCain used to be a real straight talker. On campaign finance, spending earmarks, Iraq and immigration, he has fought bravely for his principles; and that record might have been a trump against an opponent who has taken almost no such risks. But we are now witnessing what might be called McCain’s Palinization. McCain once criticized Christian conservatives as agents of intolerance, but he has caved in to their intolerance of a pro-choice running mate. McCain claims to be devoted to his country, yet he would saddle it with a vice president who is unprepared to serve as commander in chief. In the same sad way, McCain has caved in to his party’s anti-tax fanatics. The man of principle has become a panderer. The straight talker flip-flops.
This seems unfair to Sarah Palin as there’s really no reason to think she ever had anything other than hard-core right-wing views on abortion and drilling and who never expressed opinions on other major issues of national policy to sell out.
66 Responses to “Mallaby Loses It”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
September 8th, 2008 at 8:57 am
It won’t be enough, especially with most of the corporate media cowed by McCain’s whining. It’s time for political violence on a truly massive scale. It’s time for the complete elimination of the political/media/military industrial classes.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:00 am
But, John McCain is a MAVERICK, and to the extent he isn’t it’s because he used to be Jesus H. Moderate MAVERICK Inc. but then some sort of evil something or other in the air in the Bush Jr. corrupted His previously perfect and awesome MAVERICK awesomeness, and the major media are just all setting themselves up perfectly for the end of campaign turn when John S. POW MAVERICK McCain angrily condemns his and his opponent’s partisan rancor and they will all happily fall asleep knowing that the MAVERICK is back and will fix everything in their dreams.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:00 am
I can never get enough of that particular McCain picture.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:03 am
By the way, one big problem with the Sarah Palin “experience” argument is that it implies that if she were only in power longer, her crazy fundamentalist hard right ideology would eventually be just great for the Presidency. Um, no thanks, there are plenty of wizened old crazies out there, and I don’t want them anywhere near the Oval Office.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:09 am
“By the way, one big problem with the Sarah Palin “experience” argument is that it implies that if she were only in power longer, her crazy fundamentalist hard right ideology would eventually be just great for the Presidency.”
The other problem with the Sarah Palin “experience” argument is that it served to undermine Obama’s campaign in a pretty fundamental way.
It’s quite amazing that these guys are finding a way to lose an un-losable election.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Early on in the primary process, I think many on the left were OK with McCain being the GOP nominee. Yes, he’s a warmonger, but at least there was a sense that he was going to be a bit more moderate than say Rudy or Mitt.
It’s difficult to have such a perspective these days. He has run a Rove-inspired campaign, and chose a VP that is all about winning a campaign and zero about governing effectively. He has embraced everything he clearly hated not long ago. We seemed to believe he hated this kind of thing because he knew it was wrong. Now it looks like he hated it mostly because he lost in 2000.
The best one can hope for is that, if McCain wins, Palin will be marginalized within the administration. Unfortunately, there is very little evidence that would support such a belief. A safer bet is that she’ll have much more influence than she rightfully merits.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
“Early on in the primary process, I think many on the left were OK with McCain being the GOP nominee … It’s difficult to have such a perspective these days. He has run a Rove-inspired campaign, and chose a VP that is all about winning a campaign and zero about governing effectively.”
What, on Earth does a VP have to go with “governing effectively?” VP’s are always “all about winning a campaign.”
Palin makes me more worried about a McCain victory not because of how it will affect a McCain administration, but instead because it implies a likely Palin administration down the road.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:14 am
“if McCain wins”
It is amazing that this phrase even occurs in our lexicon.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:16 am
VoR–I hear you and I agree. The Right breeds ignorance and the rest of the country runs the grave risk of being held hostage yet again by that segment of the population living in La-La Land. I’d like to see Mr. Maverick tarred and feathered for bringing Palin to national prominence. The fawning of the media over this woman–vulgar, stupid, and corrupt–defies credulity. And, even though we get our knuckles rapped for even mentioning it, the baby story doesn’t pass the smell test. Anyone capable of engineering such a foolish ruse need not apply.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:17 am
Palin’s entry into the race hasn’t “undermined” Obama’s campaign — it has instead energized the base of the Republican Party, which wasn’t voting for Obama anyway.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:18 am
Also, on the topic of Mallaby, it’s worth noting that the amazingly miscalculated response from the left to the Palin pick has served to inoculate McCain to almost any defection from ‘teh elites’.
For example, two weeks ago, it would’ve been a big deal if Colin Powell had endorsed Obama. Now, not so much.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:18 am
If McCain wins, it will be the signal for a huge orgy of political violence at every level, a level of political violence unprecedented in this nation (and considering that the Civil war, properly regarded, was in essence political violence on a massive scale, that’s really saying something).
September 8th, 2008 at 9:21 am
And one of the first animals to die should be Petey, who somehow manages to blame the left for the shitty job the conservative/corporate media did with regard to Palin, as they ignored the many, many ways in which she is the devil and concentrating instead on irrelevant trivia. But that sure as hell wasn’t the left.
Die, Petey, die you fucking monster.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:22 am
“Palin’s entry into the race hasn’t “undermined” Obama’s campaign”
Not exactly what I was saying there.
My point was that making the “experience” argument against Palin has served to undermine the Obama campaign in a fundamental way.
Palin’s entry into the race provided a major challenge to the Obama campaign. It was their miscalculated response to that challenge that undermined things to the point where Obama is in excellent position to lose in November.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:22 am
What, on Earth does a VP have to go with “governing effectively?” VP’s are always “all about winning a campaign.”
VPs certainly have a role in helping a candidate win a campaign, no doubt. But post election, they should also be able to step into the role if anything happens to the POTUS. That’s the number one criteria.
A VP that actually has something to contribute of value to policy discussions in the Oval Office, that provides expertise the President doesn’t have, is one who helps to govern effectively. By contrast, a VP who serves as a lightning rod for criticism and a polarizer, does not. Unless, of course, polarizing the electorate is a goal of the administration.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:27 am
VoR intones:
You know the campaign isn’t going well when…
Thx for the death threat, VoR. I’d suggest referring to folks you mark for death as “vermin” rather than merely as animals.
Good to know that IP addresses leave a trail.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:28 am
“if McCain wins”
It is amazing that this phrase even occurs in our lexicon.
Dear Ms. Keal (aka Joel),
Nixon won, Reagan won, Bush won twice. Why would you be surprised that McCain has a chance of winning?
September 8th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Okay, and let me specifically say that, no, it hasn’t. It has, once again, only “undermined” the Obama campaign among those people who weren’t voting Obama anyway.
To the extent that this barely-over-a-week affair has changed matters, it has made conservatives more likely to vote for McCain; it hasn’t made Obama leaners less likely to vote for Obama.
But even this is a weird argument, because whatever candidate Petey’s against at the moment is always being “fundamentally undermined” by anything that occurs, nary a sparrow falls such that Petey doesn’t declare candidate X has been undermined.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:31 am
Petey’s pretty much the Michael Phelps of concern trolls.
Or douchebags.
Take your pick.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:44 am
“Petey’s pretty much the Michael Phelps of concern trolls.”
I’m actually not that concerned.
I’m voting Obama, but I think this election has unusually low consequentiality.
But while I’m not that concerned, I am absolutely amazed at what’s been taking place. if you don’t think one particular campaign has been winning every single major battle fought over the past six weeks, you’re not watching the same game that I am.
If I thought this election had high consequentiality, I’d be absolutely furious at the folks in Chicago.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:46 am
It was their miscalculated response to that challenge
Please cite specific examples of the Obama campaign (note: not “random Daily Kos diarist” or “some guy with a sign) “miscalculating” about Palin.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:55 am
“Please cite specific examples of the Obama campaign (note: not “random Daily Kos diarist” or “some guy with a sign) “miscalculating” about Palin.”
They’ve had the candidate himself try to ding Palin on experience a couple of times, which is close to suicidal behavior.
But even more than that, they’ve been encouraging friendly third parties to slam Palin with the furniture, not realizing that plausible deniability would not provide immunity against the electoral blowback.
If they’d been a lot smarter than they actually are, they would have had the candidate repeatedly defend Palin on a variety of cultural grounds, and they would have strongly encouraged friendly third parties to drop the topic like a hot potato.
It’s been telling over the past ten days that both the Republicans and the Democrats want to talk about Palin. One of them is wrong, and I don’t think it’s too complicated to figure out which one that is.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:55 am
Win or lose, the religious right has found a new poster child.
As someone wrote, the Bush crowd were probably laughing behind their hands at the fundamentalist nuts… they used them as foot soldiers and then gave them … Harriet Miers. Bush was scary, but as a Yale educated son of Yale man, he was not as far out as expecting Armageddon breaking out in Israel or Babylon, or winning the world for Jesus.
Palin looks like the real deal. A total believer, she is even more sure Jesus is on her side than Bush was. Expect no moderation, no centre ground, no reaching out. She will win: Jesus has promised her.
By nominating her, McCain has implicitly passed the torch, perhaps without realizing it. He has effectively sealed the dominance of the religious right over the Republican party for a generation, barring an absolute Reagan-magnitude landslide defeat, which no one is predicting now.
Its pretty scary. My gut tells me that McCain won’t survive four years in office. So you may have a foreign policy written by Hagee. Scary? Its scary squared.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:56 am
Two things I like about Yglesias’s new blog home:
Comments actually post within a second of clicking submit.
The words Petey Says come prior to what Petey actually says, making what Petey says easy to ignore.
September 8th, 2008 at 9:57 am
Palin makes me more worried about a McCain victory not because of how it will affect a McCain administration, but instead because it implies a likely Palin administration down the road.
I have a feeling that, win or lose, we’ll be seeing a lot of Mrs. Palin on the national stage for many years to come. She’s the first national star the GOP has found since, well, George W. Bush.
(To compare, in the last eight years, the Dems have come up with Barack Obama, John Edwards, Howard Dean, Nancy Pelosi, and–as her own woman–Hillary Clinton.)
It’s quite amazing that these guys are finding a way to lose an un-losable election.
I’m not sure that’s quite right. The McCain campaign decided (probably correctly) they needed to make a game-changing high-risk, high-reward strategic move. So far, it appears to be paying off, but we’re only in the second inning of finding out. If she’s turns out to be not ready for primetime once she is out in the media and in debates, Obama could see his landslide yet.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:09 am
“I’m not sure that’s quite right. The McCain campaign decided (probably correctly) they needed to make a game-changing high-risk, high-reward strategic move.”
Of course, Obama had a way of pre-empting the Palin pick with his own Veep pick, had he been a bit more serious about, y’know, winning…
“So far, it appears to be paying off, but we’re only in the second inning of finding out. If she’s turns out to be not ready for primetime once she is out in the media and in debates, Obama could see his landslide yet.”
I don’t see either Palin or McCain decisively losing in the debates.
While there are miles to go before we vote, it’s worth noting that the campaign that’s up after the second convention has won the popular vote in 10 out of the last 11 Presidential elections.
I come from the school that says what happens before the end of the conventions is more important than what comes after the end of the conventions. And we’ve lost that part of the war pretty decisively.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:11 am
I think this election has unusually low consequentiality.
You advocate for what Hillary Clinton and Mitt Romney pretend is “universal health care.” The Democrats are likely to gain seats in the house and have an outside shot at reaching 60 votes in the senate. We can only reasonably count on having such numbers through one or two cycles, and in order for anything to become law the guy in the Oval Office needs to sign the bill.
Since only one of the two candidates will sign that bill–not to mention Employee Free Choice and minimum wage hikes and a whole host of other measures–how can you say this election is of low consequence?
September 8th, 2008 at 10:14 am
hey vor:
would you like to stfu?
i’m no fan of petey or the corporate media.
but you write the very same lines that one of rove’s minions would write,
if they were trying to spread the “angry leftwing blogs are the devil!” meme.
this bs about violent revolution–it’s going to get us nowhere.
put a sock in it and donate some time and money to the campaign of your choice.
which looks like it is probably the rnc, given the way you are feeding their memes.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:26 am
Since Mcwars added Caribou Barbie to the ticket demcratic voter registration has gone up and contributions to Obama`s campaign have been ten fold compared to Mcwars.
Sarah Palin scare the hell out of me because of her reilgious zealotness, she is a Theocratic believer big time and that just makes it even worse, God told me to press the button and i did……….Armageddon!!!!!!!!!!
September 8th, 2008 at 10:27 am
Re VoR
Sounds like Mr. Don Williams has changed his moniker.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:28 am
Petey, do you ever get tired of embarrassing yourself? I realize that posing as a pompous political insider from the confines of your cubicle is your shtick, but it’s really damn old by now. According to Peteyverse Rules, not only is it impossible for Barack Obama to win in November, but it’s impossible for him to even be on the ballot, since he lost the primary to John Freakin’ Edwards, God’s Gift to the Democratic Party, who even as we speak is transforming American politics forever. There comes a point in most of our lives when we just accept that we aren’t omniscient superpredictors of electoral politics, and admit that lots of things happen in American politics that we can’t explain. You, however, blunder from failed prediction to failed prediction to laughably catastrophic endorsement to failed prediction, hanging your air of perfect certainty about you at all times. It’s a testament to the power of self-delusion.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:30 am
mark f,
Low consequentiality isn’t the same as zero consequentiality. I’m voting Obama for a reason. But neither of the reasons you provide make sense to me.
I don’t think we’re going to get 60 votes for cloture on card check even if we pick up 6 Senate seats. And Obama has already taken universal healthcare off the table, (though we will likely get an expansion of S-CHIP, which I have pretty mixed feelings about.)
But one should also figure into the equation that if McCain wins, we’ll strengthen our Congressional majorities in 2010, while if Obama wins, we’ll weaken or lose them.
Taking full control of the government when you have no agenda to implement is a partially bad idea.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:33 am
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_cW9iMEJDhHU/SJnTsLotwYI/AAAAAAAAAEc/IqyEIldgbA0/s1600-h/PROCESSEDMcCain2008.jpg
September 8th, 2008 at 10:36 am
“According to Peteyverse Rules, not only is it impossible for Barack Obama to win in November”
Even after all the hemorrhaging, I still think Obama has a 40% chance of winning the thing. This is a good enough Democratic year that Team Chicago can lose every battle and still have a shot at winning the war.
I just think that testing that particular proposition is not the road you want to take.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:40 am
And of course, when Obama wins in November, Petey will say, “He should have won by a much larger margin (x%).”
Hey, Petey, I’d much rather talk about the challenge (or hype) of Sarah Palin than the Rielle Hunter bomb, wouldn’t you?
September 8th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Tangent Time.
Was it here that I read the nickname “Moosalini” for Palin?
Hats off to whoever coined that.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:42 am
I have three things to say to the lot of you:
meme snark shtick
meme snark shtick
meme snark shtick
meme snark shtick
meme snark shtick
meme snark shtick
meme snark shtick
meme snark shtick
meme snark shtick
September 8th, 2008 at 10:55 am
I think you’re misunderestimating the consequentiality of this election.
In addition to a “nuke the entire site from orbit” position on middle-east policy and a “drill now, drill forever” energy policy, McCain will be in a position to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:06 am
See, Petey, I think you’re mistaken.
A President McCain will have seen all of his legislative initiatives stifled in his first two years and will have an already unpopular “do-nothing” congress to campaign against. There could be several serious vulnerabilities in the senate and who knows how many in the house.
Then again, maybe Reid and Pelosi will play it right and we will make gains in 2010. I doubt it, but it could happens.
The point being is that we don’t know, but our best opportunity in years is now and it won’t do anyone any good if we fool ourselves into not taking it.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:07 am
“In addition to a “nuke the entire site from orbit” position on middle-east policy and a “drill now, drill forever” energy policy, McCain will be in a position to appoint at least one Supreme Court justice.”
SCOTUS is definitely at the core of why it’s not a zero consequentiality election.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:09 am
“I’m voting Obama, but I think this election has unusually low consequentiality.”
That is, without question, the most asinine statement I’ve ever read on this blog. Congratulations, moron, on failing to see the signifiance of one of the most imporant elections of your generation.
You are a fool or a liar, but either way you are scum.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:11 am
The interesting thing about Petey’s consequentiality argument is that, coming from certain people from certain political perspectives (e.g, a strict non-interventionist perspective, or a libertarian perspective), it actually makes some sense. But coming from someone of Petey’s professed beliefs, it’s just crazy.
Of course the word “professed” does a lot of work in the above paragraph.
I don’t think that there is any question that the way that the Palin nomination played out has gone very poorly for the Democrats. Blaming this on the Obama campaign specifically or the left generally seems pretty blinkered to me. The biggest problem, by far, was the unseemly focus on issues regarding Ms. Palin’s family. But that certainly wasn’t the fault of the Obama campaign, and also wasn’t the fault of the “left” writ large (though certainly some precincts of the left were useful idiots int his regard).
But really on a another level this is just an indictment of the American people. That many Americans have reacted to this circus by becoming more likely to vote for the monster and his corrupt, lying VP candidate makes me deepen my already deep cynicism about the American voter.
And let’s not even talk about August. In any sane polity, McCain’s lunacy regarding Georgia would, by itself, have sunk his candidacy. Yet it actually helped him. Of course, I know Petey’s reaction to that: he thinks that Obama should have one upped McCain’s lunacy and promised to nuke Moscow if they don’t withdraw. You guys all know Petey’s motto: Democrats should secure a progressive domestic agenda by killing more brown people than the Republicans do.
But then, Petey is a gibbering lunatic. Putting him on par with the median voter.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:16 am
” I think you’re mistaken. A President McCain will have seen all of his legislative initiatives stifled in his first two years and will have an already unpopular “do-nothing” congress to campaign against. There could be several serious vulnerabilities in the senate and who knows how many in the house.”
The party holding the WH has lost seats in 34 of the last 37 off-year elections, IIRC.
Odds are pretty damn good that we win seats in ‘10 if McCain wins, and lose seats in ‘10 if Obama wins.
Normally, you’re willing to take the loss because you’re planning to do things with the executive office, but when that’s not the case…
—–
And as you correctly note, a President McCain would indeed get nothing accomplished legislatively, which is part of why this is a low consequentiality election.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:20 am
And as you correctly note, a President Bush would indeed get nothing accomplished legislatively, which is part of why this is a low consequentiality election.
I fixed your post for you.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:32 am
President McCain would indeed get nothing accomplished legislatively, which is part of why this is a low consequentiality election.
Huh? So the Democratic Party’s primary function is to prevent the Republican agenda? If anything passes congress, McCain will veto it. We’re not going to have veto-proof majorities. Not after ‘08 and not after ‘10. We’re going to need congress and the White House to forward anything resembling a Democratic agenda. So unless you think the status quo is fine and we shouldn’t do anything meaningful, a divided goverenment is fine. But if you want health care reform, if you want card-check, and so on, this election is in no way of low consequentiality.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:32 am
11 of 44 comments on this tread belong to a moron. At least 13 of the 44 comments are in response to said moron.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Don’t argue with Petey. He’s that guy in World of Warcraft who thinks he knows the right way to take a boss. You are doing it wrong so he will sit there with his thumb up his ass so you fail until you do it his way. It’s that childish.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:42 am
So unless you think the status quo is fine and we shouldn’t do anything meaningful, a divided goverenment is fine. But if you want health care reform, if you want card-check, and so on, this election is in no way of low consequentiality.
I think the point is a McCain victory would take none of these issues off the table, but would fail to achieve anything meaningful on the Republican agenda in domestic policy (we’d probably drill a bit more…), and leave everything in place for Hillary or someone else to promise the same things in 2012 Obama is promising today. It just kicks the can down the road a bit.
SCOTUS is definitely at the core of why it’s not a zero consequentiality election.
See, I think this is totally wrong — I think SCOTUS, and by extension Roe v. Wade, is a non-issue in this election. If the 55-person Democratic majority in the Senate isn’t going to block an anti-Roe nominee to replace Stevens, why does the Democratic party even have a pro-Roe plank in their platform? Why would anyone ever ask a senatorial candidate their thoughts on abortion? It seems just preposterous to imagine another Alito being confirmed by a Senate with a clear Dem majority (unless potentially it’s to replace Scalia). If they aren’t going to block it, the pro-lifers have already won and it’s only a matter of time.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:49 am
The idea that Roe v. Wade is the only, or even primary, issue with regard to the Supreme Court, is typical but laughably naive.
Probably the biggest issues are presidential power and surveillance/due process issues. On those issues, McCain’s likely nominees are going to be far worse than Omaba’s.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
I will concur with LarryM on the point that Roe v Wade is but one of the multitude of important things the court decides.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:14 pm
“Huh? So the Democratic Party’s primary function is to prevent the Republican agenda?”
If there is a Republican Congress, yes.
If there is a Democratic Congress, no.
And that’s a big chunk of the reason why Obama is such a lousy standard-bearer in 2008.
——
“if you want health care reform, if you want card-check, and so on, this election is in no way of low consequentiality.”
As stated, on both of those issues, I think we’re going to get the identical outcome no matter who wins. (With the S-CHIP caveat mentioned previously.)
September 8th, 2008 at 12:56 pm
This has been the Central fallacy of the liberal blogosphere for the past 10 days. Today’s Rasmussen tracking poll really ought to put that line of commentary to bed.
Palin, with one speech, may have moved 10% of American women from the Obama camp to the McCain camp. These voters are presumably culturally conservative, but they are not the Republican base. Attacking Palin’s ideology or her family dramas will not help.
My feeling is that the McCain/Palin ticket needs to be hit hard for their dishonesty and the phoniness of their “maverick” brand. Obama needs to go relentlessly negative against McCain, and he needs Hillary to attack Palin’s credibility. I don’t see any other way to win this.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
The democrats will win this election by winning the debates decisively. What Petey seems to forget is that Kerry was down by ten points or so before his first debate, and simply by being in command of the facts in those debates, he tied the race. A weaker ground game in OH is the only reason Kerry is not now president.
Obama’s ground game is, by all accounts, the best the Democrats have had since the days of big-city machine politics. And McCain/Palin have had to rely so much on petty personal attacks and outright lying, not to mention that Palin is completely ignorant of most issues facing the federal government and McCain’s positions on those issues, when thought out at all, are diametrically opposed to public preferences, all three debates are going to be game-changing bloodbaths. The Democrats will up nationally by 5-8 points post-debate, and willl win 330+ electoral votes in November.
Republicans have won by putting lipstick on the pig that is their positions on the issues the last two elections. It will not work this time. Palin’s too green and McCain’s too uninspiring and too bad of a liar to pull ot off.
January 15th, 2009 at 2:59 am
laptop battery
laptop batteries
February 8th, 2009 at 10:16 pm
laptop battery
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:57 am
levitraExcellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 13th, 2009 at 12:07 am
Incredible site!
March 22nd, 2009 at 10:38 am
buy viagra online
Incredible site!
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:27 am
It is the coolest site,keep so!
cheap brand pfizer viagra