The McCain Campaign, Negative and Dangerous

There's an alarming thread running through Republican campaign rhetoric and elsewhere on the right. The expression of political preferences shouldn't have to deteriorate into the low-minded, nonsensical and increasingly inflammatory chatter that has begun to dominate the presidential race.

Supposedly rational conservatives have celebrated the Palin phenomenon as if she were a relevant and tested political force - - Pat Buchanan on MSNBC refers to her as "my girl", National Review's Rich Lowry, said Palin's winks at the debate "sent little starbursts through the screen", and William Kristol in Monday's NY Times column discussed in all seriousness a supportive phone conversation he had with Palin before her debate performance. These guys need an intervention.

If ever there were a time for intellectual integrity that time is now. Drooling over a former beauty queen turned up-start politico is a pathetic commentary on what remains of intelligent discourse on the right. One would usually expect better from Lowry. How incredibly embarrassing for these partisans to have been caught up in the Palin clamor that has infused McCain's candidacy with some life, regardless of how ill-prepared she may be, winking aside.                                 

Most disturbing, though, isn't the fact that McCain/Palin crowds seem programmed to boo when either candidate refers to the other side or The New York Times, or the mainstream media. That may just be the usual simple-minded response to the cherished bugaboos of the right, but it doesn't compare with the angry shouts of "terrorist" when Obama's name is mentioned or in one particularly virulent instance, with respect to William Ayers, "kill him."

Distressingly, neither McCain nor Palin disavow or even comment about some of the heated outbursts that have animated recent campaign events. That speaks to their desperation and reflects negatively on their claims of leadership skills and judgment. Everyone wants to win, but condoning viciousness most respectable politicians would eschew is not only divisive, it's dangerous. If McCain wanted to dispel such animus and raise his candidacy to a higher level he could easily do so with a few well-chosen words.

And he would quickly disassociate himself from the kind of rancor that has sprung up as a result of Palin's mindless attacks on the media. In Florida, at a Palin appearance, supporters "turned on reporters ...shouting abuse" one of them directing "a racial epithet at an African American sound man for a network" saying "sit down boy." (Dana Milbank, The Washington Post, 10/7/08) McCain might even consider reining in his pit-bull associate before she creates still greater havoc and more unpleasant headlines.

The reality seems to be that McCain isn't such a stand-up guy after all, despite attempts to burnish his reputation based on his years as a POW. He'll take the low road if he thinks it will put him in the White House. And he hides a deficient intellect with what passes for wit in some circles, and a forceful delivery of unsavory humor and militaristic rhetoric. He set the tone during the primaries when he chuckled after a supporter asked "how are you going to beat the bitch" instead of admonishing her for speaking that way about Senate colleague, Hillary Clinton. And he went on to rally a crowd in an ill-chosen Beach Boys derivative with his "bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran" rendering.

One of McCain's supporters, journalist John Podhoretz, in an interview on C-Span's Q & A, described George Bush as a far-sighted, "courageous" leader and suggested there would still be time, with proper intelligence, for Bush to bomb nuclear facilities in Iran no matter who won the election. Would a majority of the American people support such an action, would John McCain?

If the McCain folks want character to be an issue and if they place such store in the company political aspirants keep as well as who their supporters are, they should perhaps examine more closely the views of people like Podhoretz. And hen that phone rings at three a.m. in the White House voters may not want the person answering it to be either a militant, grumpy old man or a breezily vituperative vice president.