The Atlantic - Latest Comments in Churchill and McCain

Re: Churchill and McCain

Thomas R — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 18:39:56 -0000

I'm very disappointed by the McCain campaign and wish they hadn't gone this direction. It was a bad year to run under the GOP banner so he probably had to go a bit negative, but he's done so in a very hamfisted and annoying way. I saw a certain cleverness in picking Palin, but this stuff just seems more like desperation.

I think though the Dow going down and suspending the campaign was the real killer for him. After that it was pretty much over.

Re: Churchill and McCain

Matt — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:59:34 -0000

The problem with Mr. Coates' argument is that no one can rationally believe that if Mr. McCain had similar relationships on the right wing, that Mr. Coates and other Obama supporters would not be screaming at the top of their lungs about it.

And this must be Mr. Coates' first election to cover if he thinks this is the first time surrogates do the dirty work and it means the other side is cowardly. It's been that way from time immemorial. For the most part, the underlings sling the mud for BOTH sides, and the guy at the top tries to look "Presidential". Which is why Obama surrogates run around yelling "racism" at the phrase "that one", while he ignores the issue - but doesn't stop them. Difference is in Mr. Coates' perception, not the reality.

Re: Churchill and McCain

tomtom — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 15:36:08 -0000

I think now is a good time to remember how outraged so many were when Hillary and other Democrats brought up Ayers and Wright in the primary. How could democrat be so low? Those are the sort of smears only Republicans do!

Yet isn't it self-evident at this point that it would be far scarier right now if McCain had or Ayers Wright in his pocket right now, fresh and unused?

Bringing up Ayers in the primary was great. They hurt Obama, but not enough to cost him the nomination. That set their importance in the public mind. Bad, but not fatal.

Now they are old news. Bad sure enough, but not that damn important. McCain has to re-frame them as more important than thay are now seen. That is hard, and McCain has failed with Ayers to do anything more than incite greater Obama hatred in the base. Swing & moderate voters seem completely unconvinced they need to re-evaluate Ayers.

So next time around, when the Democratic nomination race gets ugly, remember 2008. Within reason an ugly nomination makes a stronger candidate for the general.

Hillary thought Obama was unelectable in the general. She thought he could not withstand the sort of attacks Republicans dish out, so she gave him a preview. If she had held back Obama would be receiving those attacks for the first time now, and they would carry a lot more punch.

Re: Churchill and McCain

Eduardo — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:48:10 -0000

The second MarkedMan post (12:37) was posted by me. Sorry for the typo.

Eduardo

Re: Churchill and McCain

Mutant Poodle — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:45:40 -0000

What you speak of is an inversion of what toughness is. Toughness isn't the ability to dish it out, but to take it. From the martial artist and author Dave Lowry:

It was Clyde Kimura, from Kauai, who spoke with a final authority. The toughest individuals he’d ever encountered, he said, were kendoka. “The old ones,” he said. “A kendo man who’s in his mid-sixties, been training about 50 years,” Kimura said firmly, “he can take an incredible amount of abuse.” I have often reflected on Kimura-san’s words. Interesting, isn’t it, that his concept of toughness was not in how much one could dish out, but in how much one can take?

More about this theme here.

Re: Churchill and McCain

Carrington Ward — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:37:02 -0000

Very nice point on the reversal. Another Democrat would be doing well on the fundamentals, but much weaker in dealing with the mudslinging campaign.

Re: Churchill and McCain

MarkedMan — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:27:10 -0000

MarkedMan,

What wins you elections is being the smarter man. You could be worse and smarter (Bush) or better and smarter (Obama).

And of course, a big huge part of it is fundamentals, that is, the state of the nation

Re: Churchill and McCain

toxic — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:26:12 -0000

Kerry was a pseudo intellectual putz. The Dems picked him because he had a uniform in the closet and they rather cynically decided he was their best shot at winning during wartime, not because anyone really liked the dude.

Ooops.

Re: Churchill and McCain

MarkedMan — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:23:04 -0000

I only wish you were right, but I'm afraid that being the "better man" does not generally win elections. I wish it were true, but the reality is that if Obama wins it will be because of the weight of the Republican led disaster and the incredibly bad campaign run by McCain and the incredibly smart and thorough ground game marshaled by Obama and his team. I'm 48 and I find it hard to remember when some slime machine went so far it cost them the election. But I can reel off a list of times the slime machine won the day.

Re: Churchill and McCain

Tessa — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:22:01 -0000

But they can't even honestly fight that battle, because they don't want their general to get bloody.

And that's because McCain's platform isn't McCain's platform. He planned to run the same kind of campaign Rove ran against him in 2000. To accomplish this, he abandoned his maverick policy positions, courted the christian conservatives, hired Palin, and began the smears.

Which is why I say he's not losing because of the economy. He's losing because McCain isn't McCain, and his campaign isn't his campaign...it's Bush's. And that's the kiss of death.

Re: Churchill and McCain

JordanT — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:15:51 -0000

Remember Kerry hunting and "reporting to duty"

The best way to convince somebody you have a quality is not to tell them, but to show them. You show you are tough on national security by talking intelligently and tough about national security. I think that Obama equating the health of the economy with the health of our military has been a powerful point.

Kerry always seemed to tell us he was tough "Look at my war record, Look I'm hunting, Look I'm reporting for duty" McCain does a lot of telling instead of showing as well.

Re: Churchill and McCain

Eduardo — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 12:04:40 -0000

I wasn't in the States in 2000 but I closely watched the 2004 elections. Kerry --and the Dem Party for the most part-- were afraid of the much vaunted "Republican Attack Machine". They were afraid of their attacks in national security and cultural issues (Remember Kerry hunting and "reporting to duty") Obama has engaged them not only in nat. sec. but even on abortion, etc so all they have is getting more and more ridiculous in their attacks. But if Obama hadn't faced them on nat. sec. they would be hammering him on that. He would have been painted as a pussy, etc.

Re: Churchill and McCain

anonymous — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:59:11 -0000

You ain't seen weak yet. The official website of the Republican Party of the capitol of California posted artwork calling for the torture of the Democratic nominee for President.

Check it out:

Re: Churchill and McCain

jay — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:56:56 -0000

It's worked for so many cycles they can't help but try it again. And it's still not over yet.

Re: Churchill and McCain

sv — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:55:53 -0000

and we all know what happens in the jungle to those who reveal themselves as weak inside.

Re: Churchill and McCain

sv — Wed, 15 Oct 2008 11:54:46 -0000

wisdom long ago passed down from the geto boys and others. 'real gangsters' or real badasses vs. loudmouth punks. you know, it seems obvious after you say it, Coates, but you're the only one I've seen who's been framing it in this way - that these wild swings and tactical shifts and tantrums and taunts and dishonest invective against the much superior opponent are indications of weakness and a certain level of cowardice.