« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Like I Said, It's His Temperament and Judgment: How Republicans For Obama Justify Their Switch
Frank Rich reports that
Rita Hauser, who was a Bush financial chairwoman in New York in 200 and served on the Foreign Intelligence Advisory Board in the administrations's first term, joined other players in the G.O.P. establishment in forming Republicans for Obama last week. Why? The leadership qualities she admires in Obama--temperament, sustained judgment, the ability to play well with others--are missing in McCain.This is the point some of us were making many months ago in response to Hillary's charge that Obama lacked experience and knowledge of the challenges he would face. We thought Hillary lacked the temperament and judgment so crucial to making the biggest of the big decisions, as in the case of the vote to give Bush the power to go to war. I think this distinction resonated well. The experience factor seemed so compelling, but it isn't in this case, because of the power of his positions on big issues.
I'm not gloating--at least that's not my main purpose here. Rather, I'm trying to drive home Rita Hauser's and other notable Republicans' point, because this provides a compelling way to organize and focus Obama's candidacy. The latest juice is all about the failure to regulate, which Obama was out in front on. There he was again, the inexperienced guy, displaying sound judgment relative to his opponent.
My bumper stickers now reads, "It's All About Obama's Judgment," and A "Thoughtful Temperament Makes for Sound Judgment."
Advertisement
Comments (17)
Thank you for making this point since there are quite a few of us in the GOP disgusted with Bush and his ilk. Note to certain TPM readers: demonizing Repubublicans as "repugs" and "rethugs" won't win the Obama campaign the bipartisan support that it will need in November. You're going to need all the votes that you can get in this battle.
September 21, 2008 11:15 AM | Reply | Permalink
I cringe when I see "rethugs" and "repugs" too. I'm not defending name-calling, but I'd like to make a distinction: generally, I think, the names are directed at politicians, not voters. It's still not helpful, though.
September 21, 2008 12:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
The use of "repugs" or "rethugs" does indeed apply to the politicians and not the voters. In a better political climate, when people on both sides were respectful and disagreed only on the issues, I agree that these terms would be unacceptable. However, I consider it only an expression of progressives' frustration at the people who have just about destroyed their country. Also, if you would like to see something truly ugly, watch Palin's and Guiliani's Convention speeches. I am certain I have never heard a Democratic politician speaking in such a vicious, demeaning, vindictive and personal way about republicans.
September 21, 2008 9:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
He'll never do it, but I think Obama could use a TV spot like LBJ's "countdown" ad against Goldwater.
People seem to forget that the President has his finger on a button that controls about 5,000 new clear weapons and we don't need a VP who apparently doesn't know that the Russians still have about 3,000 of them pointed at us.
September 21, 2008 1:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
I lose respect for people who demonize Republicans with juvenile and childish terms like that. I also don't really like the whole "McShame" "McSame", etc.
I just seems so pointless to me. And the people that say it come off as partisan idiots. Sorry to those that make such statements. It just doesn't float for me.
September 21, 2008 2:29 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here's another reason (from a blog that won't post)
Is Sarah Palin ready for First String? You decide.
Think like a Pro Coach might:
Despite chest beating and powerful statements of "Readiness" - Team McCain contends their "pit bull" needs special rules and special protection in a debate with Joe Biden?
Hmmmm.... Not ready for a "free-wheeling debate." She needs special protection. Special Rules. She's practically in a witness protection program right now - where no one has access to her. No press conferences. No free-wheeling events where she has to think on her feet and give the voters a chance to evaluate her thinking. No video of how she can actually get out there and show us her stuff!
Gotta protect the little lady, they do.
Now that's strange. Is it true that... She hunts. She shoots. She can field-dress a moose. She pursues vendettas. Chases down bad books. Fires people right and left. Makes sure the raped must pay for any rape evidence. She's one tough cookie!
But she's gotta be protected from a debate. Hmmmmm.....
For the highest office in the land, the second in command isn't even "ready" for the heat of a debate.
That, right there, should be a powerful sign. That lack of readiness to debate is the disqualifier!
The lady is ready to be benched. She's not first string material.
Maybe not even ready for a first string bench!
September 21, 2008 11:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Yes, the reasons my formerly Republican voting husband gives for supporting Obama are temperament and judgment. But the third item, not politically-correct I'm sure, is fear of the Republican vice presidential candidate awaiting the "Rapture". Just scares him.
September 21, 2008 2:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm glad you're giving some testimony here to back up such a claim. I've been making the argument for months that McCain's temperament disqualifies him in certain ways from holding such office. Others have disagreed. Thanks for further insight into this. It's more of an issue than many would realize. And it's made into one MORE SO by the fact that McCain himself has stated he has the temperament to be President. That, in and of itself, opens the issue to question and scrutiny.
September 21, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Okay, so you rode that single vote (and Obama's lack of a vote) to the nomination. Congrats. Now, how else did Obama distinguish himself from Hillary, how was he way out ahead of her on regulation, and do any of his votes and statements this summer diminish in the slightest your opinion of his judgment?
(Note - some of us thought that a 100% off-hand dismissal of any threat from Hussein despite evidence to the contrary didn't show the best of judgment. You know, that "trust but verify" stuff we could never do. But whatever, you're in the driver's seat now.)
September 21, 2008 5:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Des,
You wrote,
Now, how else did Obama distinguish himself from Hillary, how was he way out ahead of her on regulation,....
Not up on the off track regulatory horse race between HRC and BO. They're probably comparable on this issue, although it's likely she was into regulation earlier. His temperament and judgment are so much better than hers--witness her health care debacle, at least the version of it I've come to believe, the version that says her arrogance led to dumping a compromise bill her husband worked out with Cooper, a bill that would've insured an additional 1.5 million. She's changed, I guess. But her trashy campaign--until the last part of it, makes by point also.
You also wrote,
and do any of his votes and statements this summer diminish in the slightest your opinion of his judgment?
No. He's a pragmatist, not a centrist or deceitful. I like that he gives in to the other side when he thinks that he can recover, or that, in any horse trade, he'll eventually come out ahead. I have no evidence that he's not genuine, not holding true to his principles.
You also wrote,
(Note - some of us thought that a 100% off-hand dismissal of any threat from Hussein despite evidence to the contrary didn't show the best of judgment. You know, that "trust but verify" stuff we could never do. But whatever, you're in the driver's seat now.)
I have no evidence that he dismissed "any threat from Hussein." Wasn't he in support of on-going inspections, the sort Hussein was assenting to in the months leading up to the war?
September 21, 2008 10:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think this is a dead thread, but no, Hussein did not assent to inspections until after the AUMF was signed and the UN Security Council got on board.
September 22, 2008 8:43 AM | Reply | Permalink
How about being competemt to handle a campaign budget.
It's competence stupid...
Barack is competent and has competent people around him.
September 22, 2008 12:05 AM | Reply | Permalink
Had Florida not been ignored by the media, she would have had more money going into Super Tuesday. Half of campaign finance is blind luck. Imagine if Rev. Wright problems had broken in January rather than March. So take your attitude and shove it. If having money equaled competence, the GOP would be the most competent party on the planet.
September 22, 2008 12:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for pointing this out - always like to see moderate Republicans who see through the B.S. and take a stand in public - there are many - but remember that many came out like this in 2004 also
but do you have a citation or link?
btw, I dislike like frank rich, as he is too willing to use the misfortune of servicemembers to score cheap political points, and also had too high expectations for his book on the Iraq war which fell flat.
September 21, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dear TK:
Here's the url for the Rich article. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/17/opinion/17rich.html?hp
September 21, 2008 10:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
My career Marine brother, who has been conservative his whole adult life is out canvassing for Obama because he is smart, and has charisma, and huge amounts of ability and is a potential statesman in the making, in all the ways that word applies. We need that in this country (and in the world for this country) now more than ever since 1932.
September 21, 2008 8:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can we at least agree on one cogent point: McCain does not have a suitable temperament to be CIC. And that's just the first point. His policies as far as the economy goes are the same ones that have sunk us to the point that even if (when?) Barack is elected, he may be completely hamstrung by the enormous debt already owed.
Which brings us to Palin. To say that she is disturbing tempers the point. She is brutally unqualified and lacks the intelligence/seriousness/capacity to lead this country. It shows again that McCain is clueless in any capacity in the management of his campaign. Do we really want this old, old man, with a hair-trigger temper in charge of anything of importance??
September 21, 2008 10:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment