Thursday, September 04, 2008
"We lost their trust"
Watching McCain's speech right now, I thought this part was as McCainish as it gets:
I fight to restore the pride and principles of our party. We were elected to change Washington, and we let Washington change us. We lost the trust of the American people when some Republicans gave in to the temptations of corruption. We lost their trust when rather than reform government, both parties made it bigger. We lost their trust when instead of freeing ourselves from a dangerous dependence on foreign oil, both parties and Senator Obama passed another corporate welfare bill for oil companies. We lost their trust, when we valued our power over our principles.
While I agree with the substance of this admission, I wonder whether it was smart politically. Barack Obama admitted no sins for the Democrats, at least that I remember. Democrats are going to burn up the intertubes saying that "even John McCain admits that Republicans lost our trust."
But it certainly reinjected some straight talk back into the McCain message, and there is value in that as well.
17 Comments:
By 
, at
Thu Sep 04, 10:45:00 PM:
I don't see any loss in denial for what we all already know.
The cutting back on the 700B/year to people who don't like us is classic ...
By 
Dawnfire82, at
Thu Sep 04, 11:08:00 PM:
Concur. It's common political knowledge that the Republicans as a party have strayed in Congress. Admitting the fact in a public way does what another commenter mentioned in a different setting; it pulls a tooth out of the opponent's jaws. Because, unlike with Obama and the surge, McCain hasn't been trying to defend corrupt Republicans for the last year.
It will also likely appeal to independents and Democrats, because it's basically an admission that they are correct about one of their bigger complaints. (the sane ones, anyway)
By , at
Thu Sep 04, 11:18:00 PM:
My bad, but clearly DF got it as I meant it as any loss in admitting what we know.
Compare and contrast to Obama's inability to make an "I" statement about his belief (and perhaps "hope") that the surge would fail, characterizing it instead as he was just one of all of us who said it was a plan destined to fail.
The easiest and most intellectually honest way to disarm the adversary is to agree with them. Move on to the real substantive issues that define McCain's plan from Obama's.
By Pax Federatica, at
Thu Sep 04, 11:28:00 PM:
We're not electing a party to the White House, we're electing a candidate. For one of those candidates to call out his fellow party members during his acceptance speech may or may not help that candidate, but I don't see how it would hurt him.
By D.E. Cloutier, at
Thu Sep 04, 11:55:00 PM:
Honesty is the best policy.
In addition, flaunting your weaknesses is an effective, sophisticated sales strategy. If you can get your weaknesses "off the table," you have nothing left for people to look at except your strengths.
In business I have used the tactic frequently in negotiations over the years. It works most of the time.
Remember the highly successful advertising campaign: "Avis. We're No. 2. We try harder."
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Sep 05, 12:14:00 AM:
I think the "lost trust" bit was fine. Any Republican who is completely honest with themselves knows this, and I don't think it hurts to remind everyone that we should do our best (as a party, and individually) to do the right thing from here on out.
And, if you admit your mistakes, you are more likely to be forgiven them. If you steadfastly deny the truth of your mistake, it is going to be held against you.
By clint, at
Fri Sep 05, 12:42:00 AM:
I thought this was the most crucial part of the speech -- I wish he'd spent more time emphasizing this.
Like any number of moves the McCain camp has made in the last week, it's not just smart politically, but brilliant.
I suspect we're going to be hearing quite a bit more about this theme on the campaign trail.
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 02:40:00 AM:
Obama's weakness and that of the Dems and MSM in general (redundant I know) is that they "are never wrong". McCain's willingness to make the point that his party strayed and screwed up in office presents another clear contrast between him and the other side.
It went along with his statement that that he'd been an imperfect servant, but always a servant. Compare BJO: a self-absorbed ninny who trots out faux-humility when he thinks it useful while all the time wallowing in his self-perceived "greatness."
Putting both points into his acceptance speech was brilliant move by McCain.
By Noumenon, at
Fri Sep 05, 02:47:00 AM:
It will also likely appeal to independents and Democrats, because it's basically an admission that they are correct about one of their bigger complaints.
You are right about that. It doesn't give me a "ha! toldja!" feeling, it gives me a "hey, maybe this guy is one of what Brad DeLong would call the 'grownup' Republicans." If he managed to do that without pissing you off, he really did something. (Hope I managed to say this without pissing you off myself.)
By Cassandra, at
Fri Sep 05, 08:05:00 AM:
You know that I have been a big defender of the Bush administration.
Not on domestic issues so much but on the WOT, where I honestly think Bush's critics oversimplified the problems associated with prosecuting a war under the media spotlight. But I think he's right.
However it came about (and you can argue that point) we did lose the trust of the American people.
The truly amusing thing will be this: the Dems have argued all along that all they wanted was an admission of failure, some humility, and willingness to change. Well, when Bush did these things earlier Harry Reid reneged on every promise to try and work with him.
Now John McCain, who has a longstanding record of bipartisanship and crossing the aisle to the detriment of his own party, has shown his underbelly. Will he get stabbed for his pains?
My guess is, yes he will.
Which is why these types of gestures are so rarely made. It's sad, isn't it?
But I still hope to be proved wrong. I'm the eternal optimist.
By Dawnfire82, at
Fri Sep 05, 09:05:00 AM:
"If he managed to do that without pissing you off, he really did something. (Hope I managed to say this without pissing you off myself.) "
Of course. At the risk of stepping on the hosts' toes, I say that reasonable discourse is always welcome here, at least among the regulars. You might just have to ignore some anonymous snipers in the future.
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 09:48:00 AM:
I'm a lefty that likes McCain, and basically believe he's sincere in this sort of reaching out. But I also can't shake the feeling that I've been subjected to a very well thought out and manipulative bad-cop good-cop routine. Of course, the Dems have been known to do that too.
BTW, TH, how does McCain's "imperfect servant" compare to Obama's "imperfect vessel" that you've been gleefully mocking?
jk
By Purple Avenger, at
Fri Sep 05, 12:02:00 PM:
Just echoing what Trent Lott said recently.
By TigerHawk, at
Fri Sep 05, 12:50:00 PM:
BTW, TH, how does McCain's "imperfect servant" compare to Obama's "imperfect vessel" that you've been gleefully mocking?
I would say that, in this context, there is an enormous difference between McCain's use of the word "servant," to which he has demonstrably devoted his life, and Obama's use of the word "vessel." One not only implies humility and reveals it, and the other, well, not so much.
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 03:05:00 PM:
Well, I think we are all "imperfect vessels' in the religious, especially the Christian connotation. I have no problem with Barack Obama admitting to his humility and vulnerability as a man.
But there are substantive questions about just what HAS he done as State Senator and US Senator (public servant) with regards to his record and achievements. As one wag has put it,"Of course Barack believes in the future; that's where all his successes are."
We know that Mr. McCain is an imperfect servant; I was somewhat surprised he did not mention his problems with Frank Keating and the corrective that he applied, i.e., McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform.
It was an uneven speech in some respects, but I thought he led us down into the darkest valley of his life, then out again into the light of his transformation as a man. Rather metaphorical perhaps, but most big "idea" speeches use the language of metaphor to send a message that can be understood as transfiguring. The human mind has a need to believe in meta-physical ideas, which do not always have to be religious in nature.
He could have spoken for 45 minutes about details of revising the US Internal Revenue Tax Code and barely touched the surface of what was needed, and that would have been 'substantive', but I doubt that anyone would have found that 'transformational' or transfiguring. More like a total buzz-kill. Maybe 20 people would have stayed tuned for all of that!
If the last third of McCain's speech didn't appeal to you, then you obviously don't share his metaphysics, or that of millions of others. Not criticising, just sayin'. And I doubt that there is anything that McCain could have said that would have appealed to you...ever.
-David
By , at
Fri Sep 05, 03:22:00 PM:
"Obama, Doing To The US What Kwame Did To Detroit!"
By Miss Ladybug, at
Fri Sep 05, 04:26:00 PM:
"Vessel" also, to me, at least, implies something empty to be filled. Kinda like an empty suit people fill with their own hopes...
A "servant" on the other hand, is not empty, but works to fulfill the needs of others...
