McCain and Huckabee Lost My Respect
And not just my respect, also the respect of Republican voters (watch the lines go up when Romney speaks about policies and how they go down when McCain and Huckabee attack Romney):
Excuse the language: what a bunch of sad, pathetic schoolboys. Huckabee might just as well drop the “Christian Leader” prefix, because he didn’t behave like a Christian, but like a nasty, angry little man. And McCain? Well, McCain just lost my respect. Sad.
John McCain showed why so many people believe that he doesn’t have the temper a Commander in Chief must have. He’s too easily angry, he’s too mean. He and Romney disagree about policies, but to McCain even policy disagreements are personal.
Not only that, he also showed why most conservatives don’t support his candidacy. With regards to immigration, he clearly doesn’t understand that conservatives didn’t oppose the plan because they didn’t trust McCain and the others, it’s because they opposed the plan. They disagreed with the plan. That’s it. Nothing more, nothing less.
I really hope that Romney will win in New Hampshire. That’ll take McCain right out of the race and Romney will replace Huckabee as the frontrunner. Perhaps he should’ve struck back, but the question is whether responding emotionally to vile attacks is wise: it’s probably best to continue talking about policies and basically to ignore the personal attacks.
H/t to Dan Riehl who points out that the Politico should perhaps just come out and say it’s endorsing John McCain.
More opinions, all share my take on events, at:
UNCoRRELATED: “McCain was also extremely defensive and not very effective in defending McCain-Kennedy. While not being defensive, he’s being snarky. As far as I can tell, he wasn’t provoked beyond the expected criticism of rivals in a competitive campaign. A few days ago, my unsolicited advice to the Romney campaign was to make McCain mad so that people in New Hampshire could see the other McCain–the one who F-bombs a fellow Republican senator on the floor of the Senate. It seems that McCain didn’t need any help from the other campaigns.”
Michelle Malkin: “Romney bore the brunt of attacks. We’ll see if there’s a backlash among New Hampshire voters to the negativity soon enough. McCain was positively awful on immigration. He has not, not, not learned his lesson. Huckabee was nervous. In past debates, he performed the best–injecting humor, memorable one-liners, etc. Tonight, he was rehearsed and careful and brittle.”
Rich Lowry: Romney “has fine responses answer to answer, but is more or less non-responsive to the deepest question clouding his candidacy: whether he means what he says and is in this for the right reasons. That’s the question he must at some point convincingly answer (and I think he can), or he’s at risk of fading away.”
Ross Douthat: “Romney’s Night. Or rather, a night that made me want to vote for him, however temporarily - which, as you can probably tell if you read this blog frequently, was a high bar for him to clear… all the piling-on from his rivals felt content-free and obnoxious (I thought McCain, especially, seemed irascible and downright unpleasant in his interactions with Romney, and too confident that his role as media darling makes him untouchable), whereas even when I didn’t agree with him Mitt sounded serious and persuasive and even wonky - like the thinking conservative’s candidate that I once hoped he would be.”
Scott Lemieux: “God, if McCain wins this is going to be a painful 10 months.”
Hugh Hewitt: “Every American ought to respect John McCain’s service, but it is very difficult to like him. He went after Romney tonight like he went after John Cornyn during the immigration debate. To disagree with John McCain is to go on his enemies’ list… John McCain lacks the essential graciousness towards his critics and opponents that a president must have –the Reagan touch, the iron discipline that Bush has shown never to attack even his most partisan and harshest opponents in personal terms.”
Naom Scheiber: “With all the ‘oohs’ and ‘ahs’ in the press-filing center, it felt like we were watching a game of the dozens rather than a presidential debate. At certain moments it had the effect of making Romney look more sympathetic, at others it made him look like the only adult on stage, and at others it made him look like he must be the front-runner, since people were so determined to take him down a peg. McCain in particular seemed to go too far, looking and sounding downright snide at times.“
Perhaps McCain is overly pugnacious and snide in a debate context- something that may not play on the telly. But I look past this toward his Senate record, where he has strong friendships with Dems (including Sens. Kennedy & Clinton), and where he’s built coalitions with Dems. His record reflects pluralism- much more so than with traditional movement conservatives. So I’m less inclined to discount him because he puts on the gloves in a debate- recognizing that it may be a poor tactical choice.
I totally agree with you, Michael.
Romney came out a winner imho as well. He was the best when explaining his health care and immigration plans-clear, concise and knowledgeable.
McCain lost my respect way before this debate, last night was just the confirmation ( but, like you noticed the press likes him).
Huckabee was too vague( may be the deliberate tactic).
Thompson needs to retire, I was afraid he will fall asleep right on the stage.
Rudy was pretty good too, but there is something…… hmmmm, scary about him…..
R.Paul’s arguments were too shallow last night.
Obviously as a speaker he can’t compete with the most of them
McCain lost my respect way before this debate…
Just curious why, sashal. I’m giving him credit for legislative alliance-building (the Gang of 14, anyone?) I’m wondering what I’m missing and would like your thoughts.
Kreiz. I’m Dutch. He would’ve just taken himself out of the race if these were Dutch elections. We truly despise people who stoop so low. My views on American politics are influenced by that. I don’t know how Americans react to what McCain did, nor do I care all that much with regards to how I think about him now.
This was truly very sad. He made me understand why so many people say that he’s a mean little man when you disagree with him.
kreiz, just after he gave Bush the hug, considering what has been done to him in South Carolina.
Michael.
I think those debates were the best so far( i liked the format-no quick 30 seconds questions and answers).
If the next president will be republican, I would like Romney to be that guy.
If the next president will be democrat-Obama will be my choice….
Let me preface my remarks as coming from someone who will vote for Hillary Clinton. I did not watch the debates. I do not care what the Republicans do this season. They are fielding the worst batch of politicians perhaps ever in the history of the party.
I guess I watched a different video clip. What I saw was Mitt Romney taking offense and becoming obviously angry for what appeared to be two candidates ganging up on him and his flip flopping.
I did not see McCain address anything to Romney at all other then a snide comment off camera. What I did see was him discuss the fact that Obama is not capable of leading the nation when it comes to national security matters. Which I believe is true.
Huckabee provided a specific incidence. The only one I saw becoming mad here was Romney. Mitt Romney is a middle of the road politician who has forsaken his principals, flip flopped on issues in order to lie to the prize.
Hes being taken to task by those proponents who have not flip flopped on the issues. He must defend himself before those who would vote for him.
What did I miss?
LOL - if this is what anger looks like with Romney, he’s not exactly a volcano, is he?
It’s fine that you’re a Hillary supporter, but it colors your perception of reality a bit I’m afraid.
What you missed? What you missed were two Republicans attacking another Republican in a personal, dishonest, sad manner, as noted by virtually every other person who blogged about it.
Michael @ 4- understand. I’m not a fan of snark anywhere either, in debates, blogs or anywhere. I’m probably discounting it too much as a necessarily evil part of ‘the game’.
That’s fair enough, and I agree that Romney came out better in this particular exchange. What that analysis misses is context though; all three of these candidates are attacking each other like mad lately- and all three are guilty of distortions of the others’ records. Romney has done it repeatedly in his ads (check out Factcheck.org) against Huckabee, and then Huckabee did the same in his ads against Romney. Basically Romney is attacking on Huck’s record, but isn’t being completely accurate or forthright in the way he’s done it. Huckabee and McCain are both struggling (and fumbling) in how to react to that. They’re coming across as overly negative when they confront Romney about it, so they need to find a better way to correct the distortions and they need to steer clear of distorting Romney’s record in their responses too.
Judging by your description of Dutch politics, and the things that you’re objecting to so strenuously in American debates and ads, I can’t imagine what your campaigns are like. Do the candidates really not criticize each other? How do they manage to distinguish themselves from the others without ever crossing those lines?
I think our politicians do go too far and too negative, but the very mild things that you take issue with make me wonder how it could possibly all be done as politely as you suggest it is in your country.
On policy issues. Ha! You all should try it once.
Seriously: they criticize each other on issues, and they spend less time explaining what’s wrong with someone else’s plan and more time with explaining what’s right with their own plans.
Some parties have tried to go negative in the past, but it backfired. Last elections my party did so, I thought "o no, this will backfire" and sure enough, in the polls we immediately lost seats in the polls. And that was not negative compared to what’s happening in the US. A very mild criticism really.
I think it has a lot to do with our past. A very protestant nation we were up until the 1950s really. But that part of protestantism - don’t talk ill about someone - is still very much alive. Aside from that, we believe that our politicians basically should be a good example. Them lashing out at each other is not what we expect them to do. We expect them to be distinguished, civil and knowledgeable people.
One also has to remember that AMerican politics are, for a large part, about candidates. I find this very surprising. In the Netherlands it isn’t about people, it’s about parties and more specifically programs. We couldn’t care less what Balkenende thinks about Bos personally. We care what their plans are for the country.
It’s strange to me that you’re amazed at how I look at it: to me, it’s amazing to see what’s happening in the US and that so many people are willing to accept it as politics as usual.
What I find happening here though is that they are somewhat talking about issues- but they frame them in a way to make the other guys’ policies or record seem bad. They know how to push the voters buttons by saying that the other guy raised taxes more (which always gets a knee jerk reaction from conservative voters, even though there are some situations where tax increases are necessary and it would have been fiscally irresponsible to NOT do so.)
Maybe it’s the fact that in primary campaigns, the positions of the candidates aren’t far enough apart and so they end up distorting to try to exaggerate the differences. Plus, with policy stances being so similar, character becomes more of an issue.
That’s just a matter of perspective though. Everyone is going to view events through the lens of experience, and if these ‘attacks’ are quite mild compared to what we’re used to, then it doesn’t seem like a big deal. It is, as they say, hardball here- and part of the political game is seeing how each candidate reacts to that stuff. If they take it on the chin and have a good comeback, they’re more respected than those who play the victim. Right or wrong, that’s simply how the game is played here.
Agreed, C. I suspect we’re dealing with a cultural dividel. What Michael describes sounds like a C-Span interview- with an attendant American viewing audience of 0%. Guess we’re brash and mouthy Americans. I get his criticism- it would just put us to sleep.
Well I have a different take.
Mitt has been attacking John for months now…
I loved John McCain’s fire last night.
He is a real man not a phoney face like Mitt Romney!
lol kreiz. What I was picturing actually was more like the cartoon characters, Chip and Dale. "After you." "No, you go ahead, after you."
I think that Americans value authenticity over politeness, and we tend to think that when people are overly polite that it’s phony. No one is that nice all of the time, particularly when you know very well that the candidates are competing against each other and even if they like each other personally they definitely want the other guy to lose.
It’s fine that you’re a Hillary supporter, but it colors your perception of reality a bit I’m afraid.
That is a terrible thing for you to say to me. How is it that My voting for Hillary Clinton would cloud my judgement upon a video tape of 3 Republicans badmouthing each other in a debate. I care not who wins or loses on their side. I defend none of them. It matters not who they select they will be trounced in the November election by anyone the Democrats field. I just felt that Romney was the one who became angry and frustrated and in fact if you look at the tape again you will see Huckabee grinning because he knew he had just gotten Romney exasperated.
Sadly if anyone might be guilty of having their perception of reality skewed just a little bit it would be you who has, it seems, endorsed Romney.
lol and Hillary Clinton. And - it’s really quite sad that you look at the video and can say that Romney became very angry. That’s just hilarious. You know what he’s criticized for? For not being emotional enough when he was attacked like that.
And I interpreted Huckabee’s smile in a somewhat different way: he was having fun. He enjoys attacking Romney like that, and he smiled to McCain, his partner in crime.
You guys could argue round in circles because you simply disagree on basic opinions about the candidates. Abrisaham thinks that Romney looked bad for reacting angrily because it makes him look defensive over his changed positions (which is obviously a problem with his image with quite a lot of voters, and with some basis in truth.)
Michael meanwhile thinks that Romney had the appropriate, forceful reaction to unfair attacks.
It all depends on what your preexisting opinion was before you watched this.
I did not say he became very angry…..I said "taking offense and becoming obviously angry for what appeared to be two candidates ganging up on him and his flip flopping."
I also said "I just felt that Romney was the one who became angry and frustrated and in fact if you look at the tape again you will see Huckabee grinning because he knew he had just gotten Romney exasperated."
We are discussing the video clip. If there is more that transpired then I cannot comment on that. I am commented on the video clip that you posted here, obviously edited as well. In that clip to me it is Romney who become angry and neither McCain or Huckabee. I can only comment on the video clip in question.
We also can’t downplay the sheer fatigue of the campaign. These folks are exhausted. McCain’s trying to revive a once dead campaign, and this is his last shot. If he fails, however, he’s a shoo-in to play the lead in "Grumpy Old Men".
"the iron discipline that Bush has shown never to attack even his most partisan and harshest opponents in personal terms." - Hugh Hewitt
Seriously? Let’s not gloss over the repeated attempts by Bush and Cheney to paint their opposition as defeatists, traitors, appeasers and so forth.
Chris, when you complain equally about those on the left who paint their opposition as warmongers, neocons, and torturers, you will be credible on complaining about rhetorical incivility and/or unfairness.
Until then, stuff it.
Huh? Most of those people are self-identified neocons (NoPod comes to mind), support torture (It’s easier to count the Republicans that don’t), and cheer on wars (NoPod, McCain, Bush, Cheney). When was the last time an anti-war politician or leader actually did something traitorous (like selling weapons to Iran, or destroying the work of a CIA agent) or laid down their weapons on the battlefield?
This isn’t as balanced a situation as you’d like to pretend.
deleted by MvdG: no insults allowed.