Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Sometimes you can profit from "anyone"
I am not a fan of David Brooks. And usually I find his columns annoying in ways I won't even bother to analyze at the moment. (maybe in a comment below) But today, the day after a huge amount of press and web attention to John McCain's "judgment," Mr. Brooks actually provides some interesting information . Though I dsagree with the conclusion he reaches.
Having done some background calling around, in an apparently fruitless effort to determine the anonymous sources for Thursday's NY Times article on McCain's ethically dubious dealings with a female lobbyist who uncannily resembles his wife, Brooks finds himself saddened by the degree of conflict and rage within the McCain circle of advisors. While it is interesting that each camp of this internal war seems to represent the two sides of McCain, his long allegiance to Washington insiders, on the one hand, and his so-called "maverick" streak, Mr. Brooks fails to understand, in my view, that the internicene warfare within his circle of advisors suggests a fatal flaw in the man, not just a problem in longtime associates.
This is the issue that Brooks lays out in today's column. Read it for yourself and see if you agree with me. Brooks seems impressed that all these people love McCain. I am impressed, on the other hand, that McCain seems to like the attention of warring suitors. Be they men or be they women.
Comments (6)
I think internal tension in McCain's camp is indicative of conservative confusion, too. I seems any hope of winning elections requires consistency in principle that leaves the insiders out in the cold. But the insiders are where the power and money are. Unfortunately not where votes are.
February 22, 2008 11:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe just confusion in general that can creep into campaigns on either side. Similar problems seem to be occurring in the clinton campaign... not the same "sides," of course, but due to differing views of how to maneuver.
Your point is a good one. An additional problem related to what makes a good candidate.
Flexibility is a very important quality, as is picking good advisers. And people with certain character flaws seem to pick staff who end up at each other's throats. With McCain, that apparently goes back a long way. With Hillary, I think, it is likely due to differences in the way she and bill would have a campaign be fought. Just a suspicion off the cuff.
Thanks for your thoughts.
February 22, 2008 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that your analysis is astute, though I don't know if it's necessarily a bad thing. LBJ was famous for getting the most out of people by playing them against one another. This approach has its drawbacks of course, especially if you lose control and your staff members start focusing on the undermining one another, as, if Brooks is right, seems to be happening with McCain. I'm just suggesting that it can be an effective management style if done properly.
February 22, 2008 12:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good point, Genghis. And I suppose it has to do with whether the conflicts are in the open and encouraged as a way of coming to decisions - or whether they are latent, under the surface, a kind of inner infection that comes to a "head" from time to time.
So I think it may have to do with someone who is not narcissistic, and needing this "love" from competing parties, but instead has a humble appreciation of people with differing perspectives and makes use of that to generate creative solutions.
Thanks as ever, Genghis. You are very astute yourself! I always appreciate your posts and comments.
February 22, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think your headline sums up what I see happening with the Republicans: From the beginning, the candidates in their field have each been problematic in some ways, but they were willing to go with whoever swam to the top. But none was the poster boy for "Conservatism" that the powers wanted to emerge (ah, wet dreams of a Reagan-W clone).
But they have to win. They've been on top for too long, and they're seeing the Congress disintegrate for them before their eyes. They can't lose the presidency, too. No matter what happens with McCain now, they have to back him, spin him, push him, support him, lie for him. They'll do whatever it takes.
I think they've been freaked out by the many viable Democratic candidates that emerged. And in spite of the spitting match between Clinton and Obama, either one of them is a better candidate than McCain.
They've watched one implosion after another with their candidates (well, Thompson just petered out), but they've still got to win. They can't imagine what life will be like for them if corporations have to become responsible, if drug companies have to sell their products for fair prices, if lobbyists lose influence, if the oil companies have to acknowledge they're on the way out, and on and on.
But I (and I know you) can imagine it, and I'm just counting the days until the work can start to undo the damage. It'll take as many years to repair it as it took to lose our country to the moneyed and special interests.
But in order to keep the status quo, they'll go with McCain if they have to—"maverick" or lobbying lapdog. That "love" Brooks sees is the desperate need they have to keep the Democrats out.
February 22, 2008 9:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you for that wonderful reply, cogent and beautifully written as always.
It's amazing how much more you are able to discern in my words that I even realized I was saying when I wrote them. (poets have been known to be amazed as well at what literary critics discern!)
*counting the days*
Based on my work as a therapist, when bad things happen, it usually takes a lot longer to "fix" than it took to "damage." The damage has been great. Huge. And the fixing will take perhaps take a generation, I think.
But I'm ready to roll up my sleeves and do what I can.
As Josh is pointing out on the main site:
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/179784.php
on of the greatest dangers in this election is that "under bush" the entire govt has been conscripted to act as a political machine.
How sad: We have to battle our very govt in order to win the presidency and begin to restore both the govt and our faith in it. (That thought deserves a post of its own. It deserves to be spread far and wide.)
Facilitatrix, you are indeed a muse, a catalyst! Thank you. ♪♪♪
February 23, 2008 9:59 AM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment