McCain: I Don’t Need On the Job Training Like Short-Term Mayors and Governors

-

By John McCain’s defense of his own credentials and experience in the Republican presidential debates, one can’t help but wonder how he thinks that Sarah Palin would be ready to step into his shoes should something happen to him.

John McCain said during the Republican debates:

I have had a strong and long relationship on national security.
I have been involved in every national crisis that this nation has faced since Beirut.
I understand the issues.
I understand and appreciate the enormity of the challenge we face from radical Islamic extremism.
I am prepared.
I am prepared and need no on-the-job training.
I wasn’t a mayor for a short period of time. I wasn’t I governor for a short period of time.

Thanks to the new foreign policy blog, Undiplomatic for bringing this to our attention.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

32 comments on “McCain: I Don’t Need On the Job Training Like Short-Term Mayors and Governors

  1. John Bill says:

    Dear friend,
    Realy it is very useful post , Accept my sincere thanks and appreciation
    John Bill
    ————–
    http://www.dirking.net
    Jobs , companies , real estate , engineers , petroleum company

    Reply

  2. rollingmyeyes says:

    Obama’s near-term stradigy should be to nail the Republican brand to John McCain, with a hammer, if need be. He shouldn’t let McCain hide. After all, McCain is a card-carrying member of the GOP, recently celibrated by his fellows in St Paul, Mn. When the voter enters the voting booth he will see the truth–there will be John McCain, Republican. That will be the real John McCain, a statement easily proved by comparing his and his party policies.

    Reply

  3. WigWag says:

    Questions, there is nothing wrong with that. As long as you can live with the fact that if Obama loses and we get McCain, you share in the blame.

    Reply

  4. questions says:

    WigWag, I am not a Clinton supporter. Sorry. Too many huge issue with Bill Clinton’s presidency for me to trust his wife. Couldn’t even make myself vote for him the second time. And I tried to avoid it the first time, but Nader didn’t make it on to the ballot.
    TE,
    OK. You haven’t learned anything in all the elections you’ve so astutely observed.
    Enlighten me then. I’m always happy to learn what I don’t know.

    Reply

  5. WigWag says:

    “The rest is just a bunch of nonsense. Or racism.”
    Racism does play a role, but it’s not the whole explanation. Dukakis lost; Kerry lost. They were both white.
    “African American lamenting in a comment somewhere — we do everything we’re supposed to -talking right, dressing right, staying in school and getting a first rate education…and still we can’t win.”
    You’re right, and it is very sad. This is why many old line civil rights leaders like John Lewis, Charlie Rangel and others thought the Barack Obama candidacy was a bad idea. Even Jesse Jackson, Sr. thought it was a bad idea. Sad to say, but it looks like Jesse Jackson, Sr was right and Jesse Jackson, Jr. was wrong.
    Obama painted Hillary Clinton as a racist (Obama’s behavior was truly detestable). Ironically, African Americans would have been far better off with Clinton (who would have clobbered McCain) than Obama who may well lose.
    “Elitism is a charge made up by the Republicans –it applies only to Democrats, never to Republicans who have seemingly superior pedigrees.”
    This is wrong. In 1992, by focusing relentlessly on the economy, Bill Clinton was able to convince Americans that he shared their values while convinving them that George H.W. Bush was elitist. It happened to be true.
    “It’s that the whole notion of elitism is completely asinine. The dems in general do more for the working class than the reps do. Lower income people benefit tremendously from all sorts of government programs, from Soc. Sec. through grants for local policing. Redistribution HELPS people with less.”
    I agree that Dems are much better for working class Americans but I disagree with your premise. Recent history has proven that Americans tend to vote for candidates that they like instead of candidates who look out for them on the issues. At the very least, cultural affinity is as important as policies. You may not like it; neither do I. But it’s true.
    Kerry’s policies were better for working class Americans than Bush’s but Americans voted for Bush because they preferred to have a beer with Bush than with Kerry.
    But it’s not just people who Obama supporters dismiss as low information voters, who operate this way. After all, why did Obama supporters prefer him to Clinton, Biden, Richardson, Dodd or Kucinich? It’s not because they liked his policies better; it’s because they liked him better. Sure they preferred Obama’s position on the War in Iraq to Clinton’s, but in their heart of hearts they knew Clinton had a better health care program. But that’s not it. They just identified more with Obama. They preferred to have coffee with him so they voted for him. They based their decision not on the issues or policy differences, but on affinity, just like everyone else.
    “Had Hillary won, the Repub base would have been fired up by that.”
    Maybe, maybe not. But Hillary Clinton would have won every state that Obama is going to win (with the possible exception of Colorado and Virginia). She would have won Florida easily. She would have cruised to victory in West Virginia and Ohio. She would have won a small victory in Michigan and Wisconsin. She would have flattened Obama in Pennsylvania. She would have won Arkansas.
    In fact, Questions, every state that Obama needs to win but is now losing was won by Hillary Clinton during the primaries. And most of those states (Pennsylvania, Ohio and Florida) she won big.
    By the way, you’ve never mentioned it; don’t you wish Obama had selected Clinton instead of Biden?
    Just curious.

    Reply

  6. Tahoe Editor says:

    OK. You haven’t learned anything in all the elections you’ve so astutely observed.

    Reply

  7. questions says:

    Your 2nd graf makes me think this is the first election you’ve watched with any intensity.
    Think again.

    Reply

  8. Tahoe Editor says:

    “too” — is re: Kerry.
    Your 2nd graf makes me think this is the first election you’ve watched with any intensity.
    Sure Republicans are elitists, too, but they’re not dumb enough to disparage small-town people by saying they cling to racism and guns and religion because they are bitter.

    Reply

  9. questions says:

    It’s not “Bush went to Yale too” (not sure where the “too” is from).
    It’s that the whole notion of elitism is completely asinine. The dems in general do more for the working class than the reps do. Lower income people benefit tremendously from all sorts of government programs, from Soc. Sec. through grants for local policing. Redistribution HELPS people with less.
    The elites, if there are such, are those who would vacuum up the fruits of society and hand them over to the top one half of one percent — this is precisely what the sub-prime mess has done, what the banking, S&L (Keating %) has done, what the WalMartization of labor has done….
    That lower income people are stuck on Palin (who replicates the worst of the Republican policies) is simply foolish. Are they clinging to guns? Are they attracted to white people? Do they really identify with multi-millionaires? I don’t know. It seems that after all of these years people would realize that the dems generally do better by lower income people and the reps do better for the wealthy.
    The rest is just a bunch of nonsense. Or racism.
    Random other gleanings:
    McC tops out at 48%, Obama has hit 50% — this might be good after Palin fades away.
    African American lamenting in a comment somewhere — we do everything we’re supposed to -talking right, dressing right, staying in school and getting a first rate education…and still we can’t win.
    Palin really is a wreck. And The AP and WSJ are less than thrilled with them. And O’Reilly appears to have some teesy soft spot for Obama (at least in the interview series) — so who knows.
    So how does one get lower income people to see that “tax simplification” is crap, that the “death tax” thing is BS, that less regulation caused the sub-prime disaster, that less government causes Katrina-sized disasters, that one day they might need: an abortion, food stamps, TANF, public housing, medical care… none of which McC is likely to want to hand out with any generosity.
    Elitism is a charge made up by the Republicans — it applies only to Democrats, never to Republicans who have seemingly superior pedigrees.
    Had Hillary won, the Repub base would have been fired up by that. The lovin they are sending to Palin for her being a supermom is not translatable to a Democrat. The same qualities in a Dem would be trounced instantly. And so nothing Tahoe says really counts — whatever other thing the Dems would do, the Repubs would counter with anti-dem spray.
    Sory for the lack of structure……

    Reply

  10. WigWag says:

    “That you could even compose the phrease “with his Hyde Park pretensions” is really something. Just what does this phrase mean? Hyde Park is a city neighborhood, integrated, with grocery stores, dry cleaners, some restaurants, graffiti, streets, buses, a train, a science museum that is THE most visited museum in Chicago. Oh, and there are parks and playgrounds and the lake front. Gee, that’s really pretentious. I guess the homeless people in Hyde Park are the pretentious homeless. Gosh, I just can’t vote for a guy from a city neighborhood. I need to vote for the guy who dumped his first wife and had an affair and married an heiress.”
    Questions one more thing. You know exactly what I mean. And getting annoyed with me doesn’t change anything. I’m not the one in the process of blowing the most winnable presidential election in a generation. It’s Barack Obama who is doing that.

    Reply

  11. Tahoe Editor says:

    What’s really sad is what Peggy said. If Obama loses, he will embarrass the media, and the media will ROAST him. Live by the pen, die by the pen.

    Reply

  12. WigWag says:

    “Oh, and by the way, Clinton won by grace of Perot, did he not? He didn’t get 50% of the votes as I recall…. I’m a little foggy on it though, so correct as needed.”
    Questions, Ross Perot ran in both Presidential elections that Clinton ran in. All we can do is speculate about what the result would have been had Perot not run.
    In my opinion, without Perot, Clinton would have lost in 1992 and won anyway in 1996.
    In 1992, Clinton was running against an incumbent President (George H.W. Bush) who was responsible for winning a very popular war. Clinton won the 1992 presidential election with 43.0% of the vote against George H.W. Bush who got 37.4% of the vote and billionaire populist H. Ross Perot, who ran as an independent and got 18.9% of the vote. There were lots of factors responsible for the Clinton victory but it is widely accepted that many Democrats who supported Ronald Reagan and Bush in previous elections switched their allegiance to Clinton.
    In 1996, Clinton ran against Dole and Perot. In this election I think Clinton would have won with or without Perot in the race. In the 1996 presidential election, Clinton was re-elected, receiving 49.2% of the popular vote over Bob Dole who got 40.7% of the popular vote and Reform candidate Ross Perot who got 8.4% of the popular vote. Clinton became the first Democrat to win presidential reelection since Franklin Roosevelt. I think Clinton would have won anyway because the electoral vote in 1996 was skewed so heavily in his favor. Clinton received 379, or over 70% of the Electoral College votes, with Dole receiving 159 electoral votes.
    I think Bill Clinton won because he was able to put together a coalition of African Americans, Latinos, Upper Middle Class knowledge workers and Reagan Democrats. Gore did it too but the election was stolen from him. Kerry couldn’t do it and I don’t think Obama can do it. But I hope I’m wrong.
    You say,
    “The real issue isn’t the candidate; it’s the press coverage, the memes that people buy into because of how the press covers the story.”
    If you’re right, how do you explain why the press favored Obama over Clinton so dramatically in the nominating fight? The logical extension of your view (that Obama is losing because a right wing press wants McCain to win) is that the press favored Obama over Clinton because they wanted McCain all along and they knew that Clinton would be a better candidate against McCain than Obama would be.
    Personally, I don’t think the press is quite that smart. But if you’re right and they are, their strategy worked. Obama is a much poorer candidate against McCain than Clinton would have been.
    It looks like Obama supporters fell right into the trap that the press set for them.

    Reply

  13. Tahoe Editor says:

    “Bush went to Yale too” does not a victory make.
    The lesson here: No matter how awful one party is, it doesn’t make the other one any better or any stronger.

    Reply

  14. questions says:

    Oh, and look up the number of REPUBLICANS who have been affiliated with that elitist university in that elitist neighborhood…..
    The Repubs are happy to attack any dem for any reason. First Obama has no experience — ATTACK. Then sudeenly, Palin’s experience is just fine.
    FAMILY VALUES ARE CRUCIAL. Then, it’s just dandy that she has a pregnant teen — these things happen….
    Any argument will do.

    Reply

  15. questions says:

    WigWag,
    That you could even compose the phrease “with his Hyde Park pretensions” is really something. Just what does this phrase mean? Hyde Park is a city neighborhood, integrated, with grocery stores, dry cleaners, some restaurants, graffiti, streets, buses, a train, a science museum that is THE most visited museum in Chicago. Oh, and there are parks and playgrounds and the lake front. Gee, that’s really pretentious. I guess the homeless people in Hyde Park are the pretentious homeless. Gosh, I just can’t vote for a guy from a city neighborhood. I need to vote for the guy who dumped his first wife and had an affair and married an heiress.
    The real issue isn’t the candidate, it’s the press coverage, the memes that people buy into because of how the press covers the story.
    Obama could have been covered as a regular guy who worked hard at school and came out okay. THE AMERICAN DREAM. And it would have been fine. But the right wing press LOVES the elitism charge, so out it comes — used against a member of the elite….
    Oh, and by the way, Clinton won by grace of Perot, did he not? He didn’t get 50% of the votes as I recall…. I’m a little foggy on it though, so correct as needed.

    Reply

  16. WigWag says:

    Tahoe, you could be right. It’s funny, lots of folks criticize you around here, but so far you’ve been proven right and the Obama supporters have been proven wrong especially in regards to Obama’s electability.
    The Democrats blow election after election and would rather criticize the venal Republicans or excoriate Karl Rove than do what it actually takes to win.
    It’s not that complicated. Before they nominate a candidate all Democrats have to do is ask can this candidate win Ohio? Can this candidate win West Virginia? Can this candidate win in Western Pennsylvania?
    If the answer is yes (a good hint, but only a hint, would be who won the primaries in those states)their candidate is viable. If the answer is no, their candidate is not viable.
    You didn’t need to be a political genius to figure out that Kerry wasn’t going to be a strong candidate in Ohio, West Virginia or Western Pennsylvania and you didn’t need to be a political genius now to figure out that Obama would also struggle in those areas.
    The problem is that Democrats think that a candidate who plays well in Brookline, MA, Austin, TX, the Upper West Side of Manhattan, the Research Triangle area in North Carolina, Hyde Park in Chicago, or San Francisco, CA is electable nationally.
    Thinking that Barack Obama would be a strong presidential candidate was like thinking Nancy Pelosi would be a strong presidential candidate.
    It’s just dumb on the face of it.

    Reply

  17. Matt says:

    Criticizing Bush the way they did in the past (and in the way which is happening to Palin now) isn’t what hurt the Democrats. In fact, it was probably the most favorable and helpful aspect of their image. The real problem in the past was that they weren’t willing to do or say ANYTHING in their own defense when the Republican noise machine lowered the boom. To some extent this is happening now because Palin is a woman–the Republicans laid a clever little snare there, where anything negative you say about her becomes an attack not on her as a human being or as a representative of the Republican party, but as an attack on women in general. Ultimately, I don’t this trap is very well constructed–the material is cheap and flimsy. Obama and the Democrats will continue to be able to be pro-active on policy and in terms of generating positive, non-cynical feelings among the electorate. “Obambi” will just pull his leg out of this nasty little snare and keep on running as he was before. I still think there’s a good chance the Republicans are going to lose BIG this November.

    Reply

  18. Tahoe Editor says:

    “Enough is enough! This time I really mean it!”
    Barack ‘Isotoner’ Obama to Take Off His Third or Fourth Pair of Gloves and Get Tough
    http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/09/barack-isotoner.html

    Reply

  19. ToddinHB says:

    WigWag – If Obama believed what Palin believes, I’d have to move to New Zealand.

    Reply

  20. Tahoe Editor says:

    He’d have to form some sort of genuine, heart-felt attack, instead of saying “Look what the LA Times said” or “Look what the AP said” as Joe S. said this morning.
    He’d also have to develop a message that goes beyond Hopey� Changey� and really find a way to connect with voters. But that’s not going to happen. Harvard & Alan Keyes taught him he doesn’t really have to do anything but vague talk & biography promotion. Offering your candidacy as a credential is the ultimate affirmative action fallout.
    “I’m qualified to be president because I’m running for president” — really, can you imagine anyone else trying to say this with a straight face?
    My position on any candidacy is that what matters is what you’ve done BEFORE you announce your candidacy. There is no legit mid-race resume-padding. Making a phone call to Kenya or addressing an anti-Bush crowd in Berlin doesn’t cut it.

    Reply

  21. WigWag says:

    You could be right Tahoe, but my hypothesis is that if Obama wants to win; he needs to try something new.
    I’m curious, if you wanted Obama to win (which I know you don’t) what strategy would you recommend to him at this point?

    Reply

  22. Tahoe Editor says:

    Appearing nonstop with Bill at this point would smack of desperation, underscoring the vapidness of the original “Clinton, Bush, they’re all the same we need something completely different” candidacy he started with. He lives or dies on his own now.

    Reply

  23. WigWag says:

    News flash for ToddinHB, if you’re voting for Obama anyway, it doesn’t matter who you identify with.

    Reply

  24. WigWag says:

    Criticizing Sarah Palin makes the Democrats problem worse not better. As long as she continues to be the focal point for this election, Democrats lose. They are incapable of criticising her in a way that doesn’t actually maker her sound better to the voters they need in West Virginia, Ohio, Western Pennsylvania, etc.
    They need to ignore McCain/Palin and focus like a laser beam on the economy stupid. Because it is probably too late to convince people that Obama understands and empathizes with their problems they need surrogates to deliver this message for them. Joe Biden can do it. He has been extremely effective in Florida (which despite his current problems, Obama can still win). Governor Strickland (Ohio) can do it (although it is widely reported that Strickland and his wife detest Obama). Most importantly Hillary and Bill Clinton can do it.
    If Obama doesn’t do something dramatic he is going to lose. Appearing non stop with either Clinton or both would be a game changer. Getting Hillary selected as Majority Leader (which won’t happen) would be a game changer. Firing Nancy Pelosi and replacing her with John Murtha would be a game changer. Firing Howard Dean and replacing him with Ed Rendell would be a game changer.
    Maybe Steve Clemons or some other luminary has other good ideas. But what Obama is doing now simply isn’t working.
    The Campaign needs to try something else.

    Reply

  25. ToddinHB says:

    News flash for WigWag – I’ll never be able to identify with anyone who denies evolution and prays to god for pipelines.

    Reply

  26. Tahoe Editor says:

    It’s the Put Down strategy. It starts with Obama telling the voters they aren’t stupid. Which means if McCain is elected Obama thinks the voters are stupid. Slick.
    And this is how it ends, c/o Peggy Noonan:

    The mainstream media may themselves come down on Mr. Obama. They like him, but if he doesn’t come back and make this a race, he’ll embarrass them. They just might be on the edge of getting angry, having been left exposed. Forget what Mr. McCain and Mrs. Palin can do to Mr. Obama: If he embarrasses the media, they’ll kill him.

    Reply

  27. WigWag says:

    Tahoe is completely right about this. The way to deal with candidates like Bush and Palin is not to criticize what people like about them. The average American can’t identify with Obama; with his coolness; with his Hyde Park pretensions. It doesn’t matter if you think this is reprehensible or not; it’s the reality. Democrats are criticizing Palin (like they criticized Bush 4 and 8 years ago) for qualities Americans see in themselves.
    Here’s a news flash for you Washington Note readers, Americans can identify with a war hero or a hard working mother of 5 more than they can identify with a Harvard Law graduate turned University of Chicago Law School Professor or the Chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee.
    What’s that you say? George Bush graduated from Yale and had an MBA. Right! But that was never the persona he projected. He worked assiduously to project a home spun persona. Ask someone who didn’t know if Kerry went to Yale; the answer would have been yes. Ask the same person if Bush went to Yale. The answer would have been no.
    Most Americans don’t think of themselves or portray themselves as intellectuals. Most Americans aren’t particularly experienced or well read. Most Americans don’t have graduate degrees. Most Americans don’t wear designer suits. Lots of American women have babies when they’re in their 40s and many Americans have teenage daughters who get pregnant. Most Americans watch Sarah Palin getting quizzed by Charlie Gibson and wonder how they themselves would do if they were in the same circumstances. Or perhaps it reminds them of encounters that they have had with their bosses that they didn’t like very much.
    Every time Democrats criticized George Bush when he was running for President and now every time Democrats criticize Sarah Palin, it sounds to lots of average people that they themselves are being criticized.
    Senator Obama and Democratic elites better get a grip on this fast or they’re gong to lose. Kerry never understood it; he lost.
    Bill Clinton (who also went to Yale) understood it; he won.
    Twice!

    Reply

  28. Dave says:

    Steve, now don’t you think that just shows how honorable John McCain is.

    Reply

  29. Tahoe Editor says:

    No idea. But focusing on such hypotheticals hurts the Obama candidacy.

    Reply

  30. ToddinHB says:

    Tahoe – What would your position be if McCain were to drop dead tomorrow? Does Palin moves to the top of the ticket, or does the GOP replace McCain?
    Inquiring minds want to know!

    Reply

  31. Tahoe Editor says:

    As we’ve all said a million times, comparing Palin to Obama is a GOP winner.
    The whole point about “on the job training” is that it’s acceptable for it to happen at No. 1 Observatory Circle — not 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

    Reply

  32. Kathleen says:

    Yeah well, he needed something…you can put lipstick on a short term mayor/governor, …..and she looks like she could teach him a thing or two….
    Yes, Virginia, there is a god and she’s feeling very ironic this political season…La Comedia Divina….

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *