A Word On Behalf of Balance
Marjorie Campbell, marjorie@marjoriecampbell.com
Marc wrote: While many of the readers of this blog are heading in front of their televisions or to attend Super Bowl Parties tomorrow, they should ask themselves who's got the best team spirit between McCain and Romney? The loyal soldier who played in the team against all odds or the disproportionate ego who flip-flopped his way in political life?
Well, my goodness, Marc. I know you are dying to get some Scotch from me, but I still get to pick out the bottles should your candidate becomes The candidate - a little balance on your part might go a long way at the liquor store on my part.
More, balance in discussing Mr. McCain and Mr. Romney is intellectually appropriate. Neither has a lock on legacy here - both have much to be said for their accomplishments and temperaments - and their "egos". Indeed, one of the greatest observed weaknesses of Mr. McCain appears well-stated this morning at the Wall Street Journal and raises the very real worry that, under the pressured headiness of the Presidential Race to the Finish, Mr. McCain's unpolished performances may punch serious punctures in his support ( particularly in contrast to the oratorical excellence of Mrs. Clinton or, even more, Mr. Obama):
The [debate with Mr. Romney] exchange, along with some others, reflects a couple of Mr. McCain's less appealing traits. One is his occasional penchant for antibusiness demagoguery, as when he attacked drug companies in a previous debate, only to have Mr. Romney respond, "Don't turn the pharmaceutical companies into the big bad guys." Mr. McCain shot back, "Well, they are."
It's also obvious that Mr. McCain takes politics personally, which can shade into self-righteousness when people oppose his positions. One of our colleagues called Mr. McCain's performance on Wednesday a "victory snarl," which was about right. Should the Senator sew up the Republican nomination, none of this is the way to unite his party, or to reassure conservatives that his fall campaign will be about more than his personal honor or renegade habits of mind. (read more).
But it does not take Mr. McCain's awkward flairs of emotion, embellishment and ego, or the Wall Street Journal's editorializing, to recommend a more balanced, analytic approach to this contest, Marc. Consider the "Catholic" comments taking exception to points in Deal's column at InsideCatholic.com "Is The Catholic Vote Giving John McCain the GOP Lead?"
Jeanine echoed the same concerns, "I'm worried about McCain-Feingold and about McCain's support for the Fairness Doctrine. Also, I have some concerns about McCain's status as a "maverick" Republican and about his membership in the Gang of 14. Has McCain sponsored pro-life legislation? Isn't he suspicious of voters who are conservative and pro-life? I don't really trust him. "
Then, on January 31, reader Judy Keeven sincerely added, "If you are supporting Sen. McCain, please RECONSIDER your choice. While he has many good qualities, his iriitable temperament, impatience and impulsiveness, and his reckless disregard for the truth (re: Romney's statement about time tables in Iraq) are huge red flags."
On the same day, Chris remarked, "His demeanor is anything but Presidential, in fact it is downright hostile. I shudder to think how he would act in high stress political negotiations with other world leaders."
As I posted on January 18, you may get the King you long for - but it is not the obvious choice you seem intent to bark upon. We'd all do well to take Francis Wippel's advice: "I hate to see all this bickering among Catholics. I do not disrespect anyone here because of their choice for President. There is no clear-cut conservative candidate in this race, and as we sort through each candidate's record, I hope we can get to the facts while still respecting each other's viewpoints."
Comments