Matt Stoller asks a question today that I’ve been pondering for a while: “[I]t really is a good question as to why the Beltway establishment isn’t pointing out that John McCain regularly says things that are, simply put, crazy.”
Exhibit A, from McCain’s speech to the California Republican Party’s state convention on Saturday:
“Today, the challenges are at least as severe as they were when Ronald Reagan stood tall… And, today, the differences between Republicans and Democrats on national security are every bit as stark as they were 30 years ago. Today, leading Democratic presidential candidates vote against funding for our troops engaged in war in Afghanistan and Iraq. Today, leading democratic presidential candidates question whether there is a war on terror, offer to enter into unconditional negotiations with our worst enemies, and talk about countering the forces of radicalism by advocating surrender to them in Iraq.”
“If the Democrats get their way in Iraq, if we cede Iraq to Al Qaeda, how long will they stay the course in Afghanistan? Does anyone seriously believe that we can better meet those challenges in the aftermath of an American defeat in Iraq? It is irresponsible to think so, and any man or woman who does isn’t prepared to lead our country in the struggle against Islamic extremism.”
As a factual matter, McCain’s comments are completely detached from reality. The truth is, the vast majority of Senate Republicans voted against funding our troops engaged in war in Afghanistan and Iraq — and McCain couldn’t be bothered to show up to vote at all. Many Democrats question the idea of a “war on terror,” but so do radical liberals like Donald Rumsfeld and Rudy Giuliani. Many Democrats believe in negotiating with bitter international rivals, but so did Ronald Reagan.
But it’s the Iraq rhetoric that’s particularly unhinged. As Stoller noted, McCain was practically accusing Democratic lawmakers and their supporters of treason.
McCain’s accusation, that Democrats want to ‘surrender’ to the forces of radicalism, is remarkable for its sheer extremist bent. The only possible meaning is that a policy change in which the US forces no longer occupy Iraq indefinitely is somehow treasonous. The vast majority of the US public disagrees with this assessment, which is increasingly part of a fringe corner of a lunatic right-wing world.
The Beltway world isn’t bothering to incorporate this stunning assertion, repeated endlessly by various right-wing bloggers, into their narrative. John McCain, far from a fringe candidate who rhetorically associates with some of the most extreme elements of American culture and seeks an indefinite occupation of a foreign country, is a mainstream Presidential candidate, perhaps a reformer, a maverick, a straight-shooter, but always an honorable guy.
Stoller makes a compelling case that this stems from some odd fascination with GOP “Daddy” figures.
I don’t know why this is, but I was having a rather depressing conversation yesterday with a few Hill staffers, and we talked about our mutual frustration with Democrats who believe in ‘adults’ like McCain, Mike McConnell, Colin Powell, and the latest showhorse, David Petraeus. They just need to trust someone, anyone, in the administration, to give them facts, even if there is no one trustworthy in the entire operation. I think this is generational, and is bound up in our entire think tank and media culture.
I don’t really have anything to add; I just find the whole phenomenon to be terribly odd.