There's a Reason His Nickname's McNasty, Folks

You know, it’s funny: when you throw away everything you’ve ever claimed to stand for in a bid to tear down your opponent and secure the presidency, and you get called on it, it sorta stings. Doesn’t it, John?

What do you want voters to know coming out of the Republican Convention — about you, about your candidacy?
I’m prepared to be President of the United States, and I’ll put my country first.

There’s a theme that recurs in your books and your speeches, both about putting country first but also about honor. I wonder if you could define honor for us?
Read it in my books.

I’ve read your books.
No, I’m not going to define it.

But honor in politics?
I defined it in five books. Read my books.

[Your] campaign today is more disciplined, more traditional, more aggressive. From your point of view, why the change?
I will do as much as we possibly can do to provide as much access to the press as possible.

But beyond the press, sir, just in terms of …
I think we’re running a fine campaign, and this is where we are.

Do you miss the old way of doing it?
I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Really? Come on, Senator.
I’ll provide as much access as possible …

In 2000, after the primaries, you went back to South Carolina to talk about what you felt was a mistake you had made on the Confederate flag. Is there anything so far about this campaign that you wish you could take back or you might revisit when it’s over?
[Does not answer.]

Do I know you? [Says with a laugh.]
[Long pause.] I’m very happy with the way our campaign has been conducted, and I am very pleased and humbled to have the nomination of the Republican Party.

You do acknowledge there was a change in the campaign, in the way you had run the campaign?
[Shakes his head.]

You don’t acknowledge that? O.K., when your aides came to you and you decided, having been attacked by Barack Obama, to run some of those ads, was there a debate?
The campaign responded as planned.

So yeah, remember the mythical “John McCain” of 2000? The gregarious, open, honorable guy fighting for his country? Yeah, he’s not here anymore. In his place is John McCain, a nasty, snippy, petulant jerk, one who is more than willing to go as negative as possible, to tear down his opponent, to harm his country if it will get him to the White House. It’s a damn shame, and really, it makes you wonder which McCain is the fake one. And whether, in the end, it matters.

This entry posted in Elections and politics. Bookmark the permalink. 

3 Responses to There's a Reason His Nickname's McNasty, Folks

  1. 1
    nobody.really says:

    I’ve been thinking a lot about McCain lately.

    Mostly, it’s hard not to feel compassion for the guy. His reputation for being a straight-talking maverick is not entirely undeserved. He has long rebelled against the theocratazation of his party. He was outraged that we’d cut taxes during wartime, enhancing the disparity between soldiers who sacrifice for their nation and civilians who expect the nation to sacrifice for them. And he criticized many forms of crony capitalist corruption, culminating in efforts at campaign finance reform.

    But in his presidential campaigns, McCain learned what all politicians learn: honesty is not the best policy for national office. Republicans repeatedly rejected his bids, accurately painting him as insufficiently loyal to the principle of loyalty. The only way he was ever going to become the head of his party was by adopting the very duplicitous techniques that he had so long disdained, to take the pledge and drink the Koolaide, to become a true Party Man.

    McCain is easy to parody now because he previously reveled in his “straight talk” persona, and the fact that he is so obviously uncomfortable in his new role. But is he now really any different than other politicians? Is he somehow worse now because he used to be better then? And even if every politician must dissemble as part of his professional pursuits, wouldn’t we prefer to have a politician who obviously finds it distasteful and will therefore do it as little as necessary?

    And its not McCain all the more noble BECAUSE he regards the process as icky, yet is willing to enure it anyway – to wrest control of his party from the cabal of theocrats and crony capitalists that have turned the RNC into the nation’s most successful organized crime syndicate? The challenge is to determine whether McCain’s new persona as Party Man will stick, or whether – upon winning office – McCain would re-emerge.

    Some have suggested that the Democrats have had all of the drama on their side: the historic success of the first female candidate and the first black candidate; the long primary; the grudging capitulation; the reunification. What could the Republicans possibly do to compete with all of that for sheer entertainment value?

    Honestly, I wonder if the Republicans don’t have the better hand. They have Little Shop of Horrors: the pure, rejected innocent man, coached by The Plant in the conduct of dirty deeds. Seymour discovers that he cannot succeed without The Plant, and The Plant cannot succeed without him. But ultimately they must face each other to determine who shall master whom. The struggle between McCain and the Karl Rove apparachniks of his own party could scarcely be more dramatic. Perhaps McCain has already succumbed. Perhaps he is merely playing the apparachniks. Perhaps they are merely playing him. Who can say?

    While I find the plot tantalizing, I don’t place my votes on the basis of entertainment value. Obama is an entertaining guy, too, but I support him for boring ol’ reasons like tax and health care policies. So, if all goes as planned, I’ll never get to see whether Darth McCain ultimately turns against the Empire or not. But that’s a whole ‘nuther metaphor.

  2. Pingback: I Don't Like You Either

  3. 2
    sylphhead says:

    In his place is John McCain, a nasty, snippy, petulant jerk, one who is more than willing to go as negative as possible, to tear down his opponent, to harm his country if it will get him to the White House. It’s a damn shame, and really, it makes you wonder which McCain is the fake one. And whether, in the end, it matters.

    I think the former McCain was the real one. I still believe that McCain’s self-inflicted fall during 2007 was mainly due to his refusal to provide red meat to the nativist base. (He and Huckabee were the only ones who showed a modicum of sense or compassion on the issue; all the others really were, in Rep. Tancredo’s words, trying to “out-Tancredo Tancredo”; including guys like Duncan Who? Hunter.)

    Which is why this cycle, I’m focusing all my rhetorical efforts (for what that’s worth) on boosting Obama and not tearing down McCain, a principle I’d have gleefully abandoned had someone like Giuliani been the candidate.

    As for those who say this plays into the Democrats being too soft on McCain, I disagree. Democrats have been too soft on the Republicans. A hard-hitting message along the lines of “the Republicans forced a disastrous war on us against the better judgment of many of their peers; they will not get us out of it. In a time of scorching gas prices, record high oil profits, and the looming threat of climate change are all interrelated, You Can’t Trust The Republican Party”, I think, would resonate, more so than the “McBush” meme. It would also put McCain in an even more difficult position in balancing independents and his base, something he’s somewhat managing to do right now by the skin of his teeth.