Let’s hear one man’s first impression of the woman who would become his mistress:
She was lovely, intelligent and charming, 17 years my junior but poised and confident. I monopolized her attention the entire time, taking care to prevent anyone else from intruding on our conversation. When it came time to leave the party, I persuaded her to join me for drinks at the Royal Hawaiian Hotel. By the evening’s end, I was in love.
Not John Edwards, but close on the first name. Thus John McCain, while still married to his ailing first wife Carol, described Cindy, the blond, 25-year old cheerleader & daughter of one of Arizona’s greatest power brokers (NY Times here). Why is it that Democrats get run through the gauntlet for any misstep, while McCain’s missteps – romantic and financial – get glossed over?
Let’s make one thing clear. I don’t want this to be a main campaign issue. It would be wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong for Obama to bring this up, for all kinds of reasons – two being that we need some substantive discourse between the candidates and in this campaign, and, more practically, it would tank Obama’s positive ratings – but this might be a good job for the more unseemly of political hitmen. I’m looking at you, MoveOn.org. Or you, DailyKos. I’ve gotten enough “have you heard Obama is a Muslim?” chain letters. What about the “have you heard McCain was an adulterer?” chain letters?
Admittedly, I’m just mad about the latest swath of negative ads. And I don’t want to distract the discourse from important issues. But if McCain is going to, and we don’t want Obama himself to, do we, as Obama’s surrogates, have a choice?
A week or so ago, I was justifiably mocked for not including Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty in my list of McCain’s potential VP picks. My excuse – namely, I didn’t know he existed – was not, shall we say, up to par. Oops. In my defense, I plead “busy at work,” and I promise that that’ll be the last (obvious) gap in my coverage.
I’ve since read up on this Pawlenty character, and I’d like to make up for my previous deficiency by adding, retroactively, what I think Pawlenty would say about McCain’s campaign to that previous long list:
- Tim Pawlenty (Gov-MN): “Back to basics.” I like to measure a politician’s trustworthiness – or lack thereof – with a new metric, the “Romney.” A politician’s Romney score is a measure of the degree to which spin, style, and expedience dominate over substance. It’s not a function of the politician’s experience so much as their seriousness. An empty suit scores high on the Romney scale. For example, Mitt Romney, remarkably, weighs in at 50 kilo-Romneys (the scale had to be calibrated for normal politicians, Romney himself being an outlier). From everything I read, Pawlently looks likely to weigh in on the shy side of the scale – maybe 1 or fewer Romneys. He’s done spectacular things with budgets while still caring about his opponents, even socializing with them. Even in his criticism of Obama, he’s fairly moderate, taking the “no experience” tack, with a respecful air of deference to the Senator’s impassioned oratory. In short, Pawlenty is everything McCain used to be. Should McCain pick him, he’ll be sending a strong message that he wants to return to those roots, despite the relatively nasty and mendacious path his campaign has taken lately. One could say – in fact, I think I will – that if the choice of McCain’s running mate comes down to Romney or Pawlenty, it’ll be nothing less than a battle for McCain’s soul.
I have concerns with Pawlenty, though. Namely, his use of the “inexperienced” mantra rings a little bit hollow: he’s the same age as Obama, and his experience (ten years in the state legislature, six as governor) is certainly more than Obama’s, but it’s not a ton, and it won’t stack up against, say, likely Obama VP Evan Bayh. Also, Pawlenty has definite presidential aspirations: his wife calls him “45,” a thinly veiled referEditence to the future 45th President (Obama or McCain will be the 44th President). That makes him a good pick for McCain, and for the future of the Republican Party, but a bad pick for Democrats.
And, finally, like almost all Republicans these days, Pawlenty seems pleased to pull out the “abortion” and “gay” cards to manipulate public opinion when it suits him. Although I’m wary of the source, Pawlently’s changed his opinion on both gay rights and abortion to strategically emphasize the conservative position when it’s required of him.
Picking Pawlenty, then, would be the right move for the McCain campaign, and would hopefully signal a departure from the negative campaigning of the last two weeks. But it would set the Democrats up dangerously in 2012/6 if the unthinkable happens and McCain wins, and would not signify a departure from the Republicans’ willingness to play religious voters for all they’re worth.
McCain seems likely to suffer for a particular failure of his past in the vital swing state of Ohio (watch a painful video detailing the issue here). Netroots activists are taking up the cause… and Obama’s campaign is likely to, too. Taking on McCain’s ability to lead – i.e., hitting him where he’s strongest – could prove to be a useful avenue of attack, if done tastefully. But it’s crucial that Obama personally stay away from that type of campaigning. This has to come from Plouffe or the DNC… not Obama.
And, random Saturday note – McCain’s paying people to comment on politics blogs about how great he is. I’m watching you guys.
First, Ben Stein told us in Expelled that “evolutionists” – read, “real scientists” – were mini-Hitlers responsible for the Holocaust. Now, apparently, Barack Obama is Hitler too. Why, you ask? Because he’s popular, and holds get-togethers outside. Just like the Fuhrer. Impeccable logic.
