September 19, 2008

9/19: Turning A Gaffe Into Policy?

Yesterday we mentioned that the liberal blogosphere was abuzz over John McCain's recent interview with a Spanish-language radio station, in which he repeatedly refused to commit to a White House meeting with Spanish PM Jose Luis Zapatero. Liberal bloggers, along with the Spanish media and several American journalists, believe that McCain made a mistake and confused Zapatero with Latin American rogue leaders such as Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez. Bloggers and journalists note that McCain never made any mention of Spain or Zapatero and instead referred to "this hemisphere," "Latin America," and "the entire region," which suggests that he wasn't aware that the question was about Spain.

However, McCain adviser Randy Sheunemann insists that McCain wasn't confused by the question and that his tough talk toward Zapatero was intentional. Liberal bloggers don't buy Sheunemann's explanation and are accusing him of trying to disguise the fact that McCain committed a gaffe. Moreover, lefty bloggers are outraged that the McCain camp is (in their view) willing to risk damaging America's relationship with a NATO ally in order to avoiding admitting a mistake. Max Bergmann fumes:

"Instead of just admitting that it was small gaffe late in the day, the McCain campaign has decided that they care so little about governing that they are willing to potentially nuke the U.S.-Spain relationship just to get elected."

MCCAIN: Face It, He Got Confused

Liberal bloggers don't believe Sheunemann's claim that McCain's tough talk toward Zapatero was intentional. They think Sheunemann is trying to cover the fact that McCain was confused:

• TPM's Josh Marshall: "Randy's attempted save here does not add up. If McCain knew who Zapatero was, why did he repeatedly refer to him as a Latin American leader? Spain is not in Latin America. [...] Read the transcript or listen to the interview. The most logical explanation of this gaffe is that McCain got asked about Zapatero right after being asked about Chavez, Castro and [Evo] Morales. Not remembering who Zapatero was, he assumed he must be some other Latin American tinpot dictator and answered the question accordingly. We could be generous and assume he was just upping the ante on the normal neocon line. But by repeatedly referring to Spain as a country in Latin America, McCain just doesn't make that interpretation tenable for any fair-minded reader. Face it, he got confused."
• TAPPED's Adam Serwer: "[Sheunemann's arguments] simply don't jibe with the transcript. [...] As Josh Marshall points out, the audio shows very clearly that McCain doesn't know Zapatero is a leader in Europe. He refers to 'Latin America,' 'this hemisphere' and 'the entire region.' Either he doesn't know where Spain is, or he doesn't know where Europe is, or he didn't recall who Zapatero was. But there's just no indication that he was articulating a policy towards Spain. [...] All the campaign had to say was that it was a phone interview and McCain couldn't understand the reporter's pronunciation, but instead, they've doubled down, [George W.] Bush style."
• AMERICAblog's John Aravosis: "The McCain campaign can't admit that John McCain appeared to have a senile moment, and that his dementia was caught on tape. Instead, the McCain campaign is now embracing the only argument they have left -- they're actually now claiming that McCain meant every word he said. Really? Let's analyze, then, what McCain said. (1.) When asked about Spain and the president of Spain, McCain responded about 'Mexico' (twice), 'Latin America,' and 'the hemisphere'...Why would McCain answer a question about Spain -- four questions about Spain, in fact -- by talking about Latin America? (2.) McCain is now claiming that he won't meet President Zapatero of Spain, should McCain become president. That's rather odd, since in April, McCain did an interview with the same Spanish newspaper saying bygones were bygones, it was time to 'look to the future,' and that he'd welcome Zapatero visiting him in the White House. So, why the sudden change now? [...] (3.) The reason McCain gives for not wanting to meet with Spain's president is that he only meets with leaders who embrace democracy and human rights. Uh, McCain thinks Spain doesn't embrace democracy and human rights? What does he think, it's the 1970s and General [Francisco] Franco is still in charge? On its face, what McCain said makes no sense. He thought he was talking about Chavez or someone in Latin America..."

Several bloggers believe that McCain had a "senior moment":

• The Huffington Post's David Goldstein: "Don't just read the transcript, listen to the audio, and listen to his halting words, the obvious fatigue in his voice and the confusion in his answers. He wasn't simply being evasive or vague, he was disoriented, and while this may have only been a transient episode it should be alarming nonetheless. There are those who caution that making age an issue in this race could hurt [Barack] Obama with senior voters, but honestly...it would be irresponsible not to."
• Aravosis: "What's going on is that McCain is so egotistical and so reckless that he'd rather risk major damage to our relationship with a lead US ally than admit that he misheard a series of questions during an interview. Somebody is seriously paranoid about giving voters any impression that his mind is slipping. And that only makes us wonder all the more if it is."

Meanwhile, The Washington Monthly's Steve Benen wonders: "Forgetting Zapetero's name is almost forgivable, though hard to explain for a candidate who claims to be an expert in foreign policy. But the interviewer kept using the word 'Spain.' She even gave him a big hint with the word 'Europe.' [...] What do you suppose the reaction would be from the political establishment if Barack Obama had made these mistakes over the course of the campaign? What would reporters, pundits, and Republicans have to say about Obama's ability to lead a complex world in a time of war and uncertainty?"

The Atlantic's Andrew Sullivan agrees: "It now seems indisputable: John McCain doesn't know who the prime minister of Spain is and thinks he's some anti-American leftist in South America. Now imagine if Obama made that kind of gaffe."

MCCAIN II: It's Hard For Me To Say I'm Sorry...

Liberal bloggers are outraged that the McCain camp is (in their view) willing to damage America's relationship with a NATO ally in order to avoid admitting a mistake:

• Bergmann: "Instead of just admitting that it was small gaffe late in the day, the McCain campaign has decided that they care so little about governing that they are willing to potentially nuke the U.S.-Spain relationship just to get elected. [...] This is beyond extreme. This is beyond reckless. This is insane. McCain won't meet with a NATO ally, that has nearly 1,000 troops in Afghanistan, that has lost more than 20 soldiers there, has been brutally attacked by Al Qaeda, is incredibly influential in Latin America, has the seventh largest economy in the world, is a DEMOCRACY, and is a large and influential country in the EU. Won't meet with them?"
• TAPPED's Tim Fernholz: "After John McCain's gaffe yesterday he had basically two potential responses: Either admit that he didn't know who Spanish Prime Minister Jose Luis Zapatero is, or pretend that his Spain policy is crazy. Apparently, he's chosen the latter."
• Marshall: "Randy Scheunemann would rather further inflame Spanish-American relations by ridiculously insisting that McCain knew exactly what he saying than admit the obvious -- that he didn't understand the question. [...] Given McCain has premised his whole campaign on foreign policy experience they've clearly decided it would simply be too damaging to admit he was either a) confused, b) ignorant or c) reckless enough to spout off aggressive remarks when he didn't even know who he was being asked about."
• Mark Kleiman: "McCain, not understanding a question, ran a bluff. Having been caught bluffing, his campaign doubles down, and choose to turn the mistake into a deliberate affront to an important ally which currently has troops in Afghanistan. This is completely consistent with the McCain conviction that admitting a mistake shows weakness, and with the 'Me first, country second' approach McCain has taken throughout this campaign. [...] This is a clear demonstration of McCain's unfitness for office."
• Obsidian Wings' hilzoy: "McCain and his campaign are willing to insult a foreign leader and damage an alliance, rather than admit to a moment of confusion."
• Atrios: "The dirty little secret about John McCain is that he really knows nothing about anything. He's as incurious and ignorant as George Bush, with less excuse. So, yes, it makes sense that his people would rather suggest and end of relations with our NATO ally than reveal the truth about their woefully inadequate candidate."
• Daily Kos' mcjoan: "It's about time America had a president who not only could learn from a mistake, but actually have the intelligence and integrity to recognize when they've made one, and 'fess up."

MCCAIN III: What's He Got Against Spain?

Several liberal bloggers are taking Scheueneman at his word, which would suggest that McCain is continuing Bush's policy of refusing to meet with Zapatero:

• Think Progress' Ben Armbruster: "The logic behind this particular policy is baffling, considering that Spain has long been a U.S. NATO ally and currently has troops in Afghanistan. So why would McCain shun Zapatero? If President Bush's actions towards the Spanish Prime Minster give some indication, the answer is Iraq. Zapatero withdrew Spain's troops from Iraq soon after his Socialist Party swept to power in March, 2004 in a wave of Spanish anti-war sentiment, a move that reportedly angered Bush. [...] Since then, the White House has said Bush has 'no plans' to meet with Zapataro. [...] McCain's incoherent answer to whether he would meet with Zapatero may indicate that he is interested in making Bush's grudge against Spain permanent U.S. policy."
• Mother Jones' Kevin Drum: "President Bush already has a policy of keeping Zapatero in the deep freeze, and I guess McCain has decided not to deviate from it."

That said, liberal bloggers find McCain's remarks needlessly confrontational:

• dday: "If [Scheueneman's explanation] is true, wow. I knew the neocons were belligerent, but this explanation makes them sound suicidal. Spain is a NATO ally. We would be obligated to go to war on their behalf if they were attacked. McCain wants to refuse to meet with their leaders? This is part of a pattern of the McCain campaign trying to cover up a bad moment with an even worse explanation."
• The Nation's Ari Berman: "[This] seems like a needlessly confrontational and reckless geopolitical posture, given that Spain has the world's 8th largest economy and 780 troops serving in Afghanistan alongside NATO allies. Huffington Post reminds us that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice met with Zapatero last year and said that 'the United States and Spain are allies. We're in NATO together; we are serving together in Afghanistan.' McCain himself told Spain's El Pais in April that he'd meet with Zapatero. Why the change of heart?"
• TalkLeft's Big Tent Democrat: "Let me get this straight, McCain would risk war with Russia for the sake of an unhinged leader of Georgia, but he would not even meet with the leader of a longstanding US ally and member of NATO? This is grossly incompetent and irresponsible. This is more than a gaffe. This is a scandal. John McCain is unfit to be President."

MCCAIN IV: Get Your Act Together, John!

Several conservative bloggers are criticizing McCain's response to the turmoil on Wall Street:

• AmSpec Blog's Philip Klein: "McCain may have gained traction among social conservatives by naming Sarah Palin as his running mate, but his emotional and irrational reaction to the crisis on Wall Street risks alienating economic conservatives, and, as far as I'm concerned, it renews questions about whether he has the temperament to be an effective president. His reaction to this week's news has thus far been to huff and puff about greed on Wall Street, call for a commission to study the problem (very legislator-like), and to make vague promises about tough and aggressive regulation."
• AmSpec Blog's James Antle: "John McCain's descent (reversion?) into quasi-socialism is all the more perplexing given that he has done best in this race when he has actually sounded and behaved like a Republican."

Righty bloggers have been particularly critical of McCain's assertion that he would "fire" SEC Chairman Christopher Cox

• AmSpec Blog's Quin Hillyer: "McCain has lost his mind. Now [he] wants to fire Chris Cox from the SEC specifically because Cox supposedly 'allowed naked short-selling.' This is just the latest in a string of utterly panicky statements this week in which McCain has shown that he doesn't have a clue what he is talking about. The truth is, Cox actually did move to ban naked short-selling, and withstood harsh (but wrongheaded) criticism from almost all quarters when he did so."
• NRO's Nick Schulz: "At a time when the federal government is nationalizing big chunks of the financial services industry, it is odd that Sen. McCain would attack SEC chairman Christopher Cox and call for his head. The administration badly needs a smart, conservative, free market advocate weighing in during this crisis and Cox is that guy. There's lots of blame to go around for the mess we're in. Cox doesn't deserve it."
• Stephen Bainbridge: "I've never really trusted John McCain on the economy. On this issue, he's simply the lesser of two evils. Barack Obama knows what he wants to do to the economy and what he wants to do scares the crap out of me. McCain doesn't know very much of anything about the economy but I'm counting on him to appoint somebody sensible to handle the economy while McCain goes off to do National Greatness stuff. Unfortunately, McCain's shortcomings with respect to the economy are on full display in his attack on SEC Chairman Chris Cox. [...] This is McCain at his worst. Populist. Hot tempered. Shooting from the hip."

Meanwhile, Power Line's John Hinderaker offers McCain some advice: "McCain has a huge opportunity to convince voters that his is the steady hand we need to make sure that the miscalculations of investment bankers don't damage the prospects of ordinary American families. A big part of being a strong, steady leader is not panicking. McCain can afford to tone down some of his recent populism a bit. He can be a reformer without being maniacally anti-Wall Street. [...] A reaffirmation of free enterprise, with reasonably low tax rates, is entirely compatible with a righteous determination to drive the money-changers -- in fact, nearly all Democratic money-changers -- out of the federal temple. Someone needs to remind McCain that 'reform' is not synonymous with 'regulation.' On the contrary."

BIDEN: Say It Ain't So, Joe

Conservative bloggers are slamming Joe Biden for "say[ing] that paying higher taxes is the patriotic thing to do for wealthier Americans":

• Michelle Malkin: "Smirky: If you don't pay higher taxes, you hate your country! [Biden]'s the gift that keeps on giving."
• RedState's Pejman Yousefzadeh: "According to Senator Joseph Biden, if we roll over and play dead when the government wants to take even more money out of our paychecks to put in the Department of the Treasury so as to finance Bridge to Nowhere boondoggles, an education system that doesn't even come close to delivering a bang for the buck (even though we spend more per pupil than any other country in the world), a Medicare and Social Security system that are on the verge of collapse and more GSEs that could go the way of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, an ever-expanding government that takes away more and more autonomy from the state and local levels, we will be 'patriotic.'"
• Hot Air's Ed Morrissey: "Biden wants to tell us that paying higher taxes is patriotic. You know what would be patriotic? Congressmen like Barack Obama and Joe Biden attacking government spending, not trying to beef up government revenues (and doing so in the most destructive way, by attacking capital needed for investment). Biden could be patriotic by revealing his pork-barrel record, something he has consistently failed to do. Who gets Biden's earmarks? Why can't Biden be patriotic and forego earmarks?"
• Townhall's Carol Platt Liebau: "Remember when Barack refused to wear a lapel pin, calling it a substitute for 'true patriotism'? Well, now perhaps we know how he defines 'true patriotism.' His running mate, Joe Biden, believes that paying higher taxes is patriotic. Certainly, not all Democrats would agree with them. But it is noteworthy that, taken together, the Dems standard-bearers this year see pride in America as less important than the willingness to hand more of your hard-earned money over to the politicians to spend as they see fit."
• NRO's Ed Whelan: "Ah, now I get it. I had found it puzzling that Democrats kept saying that you can't question the patriotism of someone who has a record of consorting with unrepentant Weather Underground terrorists, of selecting as his pastor and spiritual mentor a spewer of anti-American screeds, and of generally blaming America first. But now that Joe Biden has explained that higher taxes are patriotic, I finally understand the sense in which Barack Obama's patriotism is beyond question."
• NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru: "[Biden] means that a patriot should support raising taxes. But of course any public policy can be supported for patriotic reasons—because the advocate of the policy thinks it would advance the national interest. I tend to think that raising the top marginal tax rate would set the country back (although I am not necessarily averse to other ways of making high earners pay more). So I disagree with Biden about what patriotism requires here. The invocation of patriotism does no analytical work here. You could just as well say 'good people should support tax increases.' You would merely be dumbing down the debate in a way liberals usually find objectionable."

PALIN: You Can Give A Dude A Subpoena, But You Can't Make Him Comply

Liberal bloggers are criticizing Todd Palin's refusal to comply with the subpoena issued last week by the AK legislature:

• Kleiman: "A valid subpoena from a legislature, just like a valid subpoena from a court, is not an invitation. It's a legally binding order. Ignoring that order is a crime: contempt. Todd Palin is committing a crime, and the McCain campaign is encouraging him to do so. I think we've had about enough of contempt for the rule of law on the part of executive-branch officials, haven't we?"
• AMERICAblog's Joe Sudbay: "Palin fits right into the GOP 'culture of corruption.' And, I think we're going to keep learning a lot about Todd. In many ways, he's a natural successor to Lynne Cheney."
• TalkLeft's Jeralyn Merritt: "Instead of taking the 5th, something we could respect as his constitutional right, [Palin]'s claiming he can't get a fair hearing. Republican politics as usual. [...] So, Palin and McCain have derailed the investigation -- but it also means she will run for Vice-President with a cloud of suspicion of impropriety over her head. Sarah Palin: Ethically challenged, Polarizer in Chief. Run, Sarah, Run."
• Benen: "Let's not lose sight of the extent to which Palin has broken her word here. She vowed total cooperation, and the investigation enjoyed broad, bipartisan support. Since the McCain campaign got involved, Palin has decided she won't answer questions, subpoenaed state employees won't answer questions, and Palin's subpoenaed husband won't answer questions. Five Republicans in the Alaskan legislature, who never had a problem with the probe before, have even filed a lawsuit, asking a state judge to end the probe altogether. This didn't stop Palin from boasting to voters this week, 'We're going to make everything more open, and more accountable, and more attractive to those who want to serve.' (There's no word on whether she was able to say the line with a straight face.)"

THOUGHT OF THE DAY: Macro Factors vs. Micro Factors

FiveThirtyEight's Nate Silver offers some thoughts on the state of the race:

"There are now 46 days left until the election. The Obama campaign must feel like, if they can spend 35-40 of those days talking about the economy, they are in a very strong position. Excepting the three or four days surrounding the foreign policy debate in Mississippi next week, and the residual possibility of an unanticipated foreign policy crisis, the inertia of the campaign probably means that they will have the opportunity to do so.

Unless, of course, the McCain campaign can throw up some roadblocks and distractions. McCain's is a creative campaign -- more creative in many ways than the Obama campaign. As such, we should not discount the possibility of their finding an effective way to alter the momentum, perhaps one -- like their 'celebrity' critique of Obama -- that was difficult to envision in advance.

At the same time, the campaign cost itself a lot of credibility -- certainly with the media, and to a lesser extent with voters -- with some of their shenanigans of the past week, most notably Lipstickgate, 'Thanks, but no thanks', and the Obama kindergarten commercial. To use a crude metaphor, the McCain campaign may have blown its wad too early. Organic shifts in the momentum of the race can and probably will still occur, but they may find it more difficult now to synthesize one."

LEST WE FORGET: Area Man Committed To Being Spicy Food Guy

From The Onion:

"NEWTON, KS -- Auto salesman Royce Flankingston -- known to frequently question waitstaff as to whether or not food is 'actually' spicy, always ordering the spiciest dish on any menu, and then complaining that it is not spicy enough—recently renewed his commitment to being the spicy food aficionado in his group of friends. 'Jalapenos, habaneros, those are some weak-sauce peppers, man -- you got anything spicy in that salsa?' Flankingston asked his fellow Chrysler dealership employees at a company picnic last weekend, to which he brought his own sampler selection of hot sauces and dared everyone present to try them. 'The famous asbestos Flankingston tongue doesn't notice anything under 10,000 Scoville units, so spare me that Heinz ketchup stuff, okay, buds?' Those close to Flankingston said that, while obnoxious, his latest obsession isn't half as bad as when he attempted to be the small-batch bourbon guy."

Posted by Ian Faerstein at September 19, 2008 12:46 PM