Balkinization: Corroboration on fears about John McCain

Corroboration on fears about John McCain

Sandy Levinson

I must say I was much relieved, given my fears that I had indeed gone over the top in my criticism of Senator McCain, to read some reactions to McCain my regular and more sober pundits. Consider John Judis, in a column tellingly entitled "Putting Country Last":

I never doubted . . . that McCain's motives in pushing America into war were honorable. Nor do I question his motives in pushing Georgia into NATO or in rattling the sabers against Iran. I question his judgment and wouldn't want him as president. But I do question his motives in inserting himself into the attempt by the Treasury Department, Federal Reserve, and the Congressional leadership (excluding the usual suspects from the Republican House delegation) to fashion a plan for preventing a Wall Street crash. He has shown a willingness to put the success of his campaign ahead of the country's welfare. And it's not over a relatively minor matter--like offshore drilling or creationism in schools.

I know there are economists, some of whom I respect, that think this financial crisis will blow over, that it's a crisis in the financial superstructure that won't ultimately affect the country's industrial base. I have never understood the post-1980 stock market very well, but I know something about economic history, and I know that at a certain point, a financial crisis can get out of hand and lead to a credit crunch that will depress the industrial base and set off a vicious cycle of unemployment. I also know a little bit about international economic history--enough at least to appreciate what would happen if nations began to abandon the dollar the way they abandoned the British pound eighty years ago. As Paul Krugman--who has been writing about the mortgage mess for years--has argued, it is not worth taking the chance that this crisis will blow over.That's a long way of saying that it is simply unpatriotic--it's an insult to flag, country, and all the things that McCain claims to hold dear--for McCain to hold this financial crisis hostage to his political ambitions. McCain doesn't know a thing about finance and is no position to help work out an agreement [emphasis added]. If we do suffer a serious bank run, or a run on the dollar, it can be laid directly at his feet. As I said to friends last night, if McCain had been president at this point, I would have wanted to impeach him.

But Judis is a Democrat, as is E.J. Dionne, who wrote a caustic column on McCain's "Crashing the Party":

McCain jumped into this game in the fourth quarter. Many of the players on the field, caked in mud and exhausted but determined as they approach the goal line,wonder why this new would-be quarterback has suddenly appeared in their midst.

McCain could yet play a constructive role by rounding up votes from restive Republicans. Oddly, the biggest obstacle to a bill may not be Democrats but Republicans who refuse to go along with their own president. And--yes, there is an election coming--Democrats will be wary of going forward unless a substantial number of Republicans join them.

But McCain's boisterous intervention--and particularly his grandstanding on the debate--was less a presidential act than the tactical ploy of a man worried that his chances of becoming president might be slipping away..

So consider Peggy Noonan's column in this morning's Wall Street Journal, entitled "Party of One." She presumably can't be castigated as someone unsympathetic with the Republcian Party and its interests. She should have a certain "authority," so to speak, with our Republican friends: So consider the opening paragraphs of her piece:

The impetuous young man threw the long ball, suspending his campaign and flying to Washington to save the day. The more measured and less excitable older man said easy does it, let's unite and issue a statement together. The young man seemed decisive if tightly wound, the older man unruffled, if cloudier in his remarks.
Wait, I have it wrong, it's the older man who was dramatic and impetuous, the younger man who was deliberative and temperate!
What a week, with all categories upside-down and out the window.
How does the McCain gambit play out? Nothing wrong with his decision: We are in a crisis, why not return to Washington and try to help? But it's also true that in moving unilaterally, and claiming at the same time he was just trying to make things less tackily political, he made things more political, or rather more partisan.

Ms. Noonan also had some interesting things to say about Sarah Palin, but, for once, I'll focus only on one thing at a time. In any event, I feel better about my own judgments about Sen. McCain's character and his fitnes to be our president/constitutional dictator.

Posted 6:04 PM by Sandy Levinson [link]

Comments:

McCain is just a loose cannon Sandy, and the only thing that anyone needs to understand about him is that he was a tortured as a POW yet has nevertheless aided and abetted the Bush administration's war crimes against prisoners, including torture, purely for the sake of his political ambitions.

And the saber rattling over Iran and Georgia is pure idiocy.

# posted by

Charles Gittings : 7:39 PM

I think Judis is over the top too, and Noonan - not that I respect her commentary or anything - isn't really that critical. Like I said before, there's no way the House Republicans will support a deal that even McCain doesn't support. Apparently the House Democrats are afraid to vote for a bill without bipartisan cover (and I thought this was a crisis). So any deal that happens will need the House Republicans' support, and therefore McCain's. McCain didn't like the Paulson plan or Dodd's. So he needed to be involved. Unless your objection isn't that he involved himself, but rather that the Dodd plan is so perfect that he just should've given his imprimatur to that, without demanding further changes. Or, perhaps, that we need intervention so badly that it's better that we pass Dodd's plan immediately rather than pass nothing.

# posted by

Asher : 8:30 PM

tray:

Apparently the House Democrats are afraid to vote for a bill without bipartisan cover (and I thought this was a crisis).

That could be because that Republican supporters were already putting out strategies that they could use Democratic passing of this bailout to their benefit in the election. Who, then, is causing them to decide to play CYA? I thought this was a crisis.

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 8:39 PM

Note to Harvard Law: You need to beef up your moot court program if Obama is an example of your product.

Obama has to lose that Kerrey-esque mumbling "That's not true," head shaking and eye rolling schtick during McCain's comments. It is rude. Kerry lost his debates to Bush on body language gaffes like this.

The raising your hand like a 4th grader asking to go to the bathroom thing needs to go as well. Just speak up or shut up.

Finally, stop agreeing with half of what McCain is pitching. It makes you sound like a "me too" weenie. Along the same lines, the "I have a bracelet too" was pathetic. It would have been far more effective, at least with your anti-war base, to simply have rejoined that the soldier on McCain's bracelet would not have had to die if McCain had the judgement not to send the country to war in the first place. Its a cheap shot, but effective.

McCain 1, Obama 0

I just hope the audience was large because Obama has pulled ahead of McCain this week and McCain needed a good debate performance.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 11:09 PM

NBC snap poll of undecided voters, McCain came in third:

40% Obama won
38% Draw
22% McCain won

Bart, with your decision to vote for Obama, are you still hoping that many people saw this debate because McCain won?

# posted by

Fraud Guy : 11:45 PM

Oh, Obama clearly won that debate and I'm a McCain voter (or rather, would've been if he hadn't picked Palin, though I would switch back if he would wisen up and drop her already). McCain had all the body language gaffes, Bart. And apparently his solution to our economic problems is slashing funds for bear DNA studies. How could he even go there when Palin requested money for seal DNA studies? McCain won the latter third of the debate, I suppose, but those were the least important questions.

# posted by

Asher : 2:27 AM

In his eagerness to make what he doubtless thought was a 'clever' point, De Palma writes about mooting at Harvard Law School, an institution Obama attended and which is just a teeny bit more prestigious than Florida State, where Mr De Palma will also have participated in mooting as part of his preparation for life at the bar of a court.

Bart's analysis is, as usual, somewhat flawed. Mooting teaches the art of forensic argument to the Court - argument addressed to Judges. The presidential debates are more akin to jury trials where the candidates are the witnesses and the member of the public are the jury.

Any trial lawyer well knows that how a witness gives evidence is often far more important than what the witness says. Consciously or, more often, subconsciously, juries attach great weight to the demeanour of a witness in deciding what weight to give to his evidence.

I was very struck by the demeanour of McCain, particularly his refusal to make any eye contact with Obama. Juries generally characterise that kind of behaviour as "shifty" and suggesting:-

(a) fear - the witness fears exposure under cross-examination and that his evidence will be rejected; and/or

(b) anger management - the witness has contempt for the process and is trying to disguise it.

The subconscious message McCain's demeanour projected in spades was this:

"How dare you, you uppity black man of no experience! How DARE you question MY judgment! I have 26 years' experience as a United States Senator one of the most senior of the 100 most important people in the country. You should be sitting at my feet, respectfully listening to my every word, not contradicting ME before all these people! You are an upstart lacking the respect due to your elders and betters!"

While the pundits, who were generally having regard to what was being said rather than how, tended to rate this debate as a draw, the instant polling generally put Obama as the clear winner.

Could it be that the public are beginning to realise that with poor old John McCain they would not be getting 26 years' experience, but 1 year's experience repeated 26 times? A tired old man with tired old rhetoric and tired old policies.

I do not think the public have yet completely cottoned on to the fact that McCain is also running a fundamentally dishonest campaign - or perhaps they regard that as the norm in American politics.

# posted by

Mourad : 4:18 AM

What bleary-eyed finance experts loved to hear:
"I'm John McCain and I'm here to help".

# posted by

James Wimberley : 5:38 AM

mourad:

You are speaking from ignorance again.

1) Winning in moot court competitions has zero to do with "prestige" and everything to do with training and preparation. You may want to check out FSU Law's record in national moot court competitions. It is one of the best in the nation. When I competed with the FSU team, I personally enjoyed whipping on the so called "elite school" teams.

2) Canned presidential debates with questions posed by a moderator are far ore akin to a moot court competition with questions posed by a panel of lawyers or judges than to a mock trial competition where the students acting as attorneys control the presentation.

# posted by

Bart DePalma : 9:04 AM

I really have to laugh. "Bart" presumes to lecture others on how to debate..... ROFLMAO.....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 3:25 PM

Arne:-

This entry on Wikipedia Moot Court gives an adequate explanation of what mooting is all about which is to hone advocacy skills:-

"After the presentation of arguments has concluded the judge will retire to deliberate on both the law and the overall winning of the moot. A moot is not won and lost on the legal argument, but on the advocacy skills of the participants. It is often the case that the team which has the weaker legal argument is in a better position as they have to argue that much more persuasively".

Thus as I tried to point out to Bart, mooting is not something in any way relevant to presidential debates because mooting is a forensic debate on assumed facts addressed to a judge and not to a jury.

In a presidential debates the candidates are (i) addressing a jury (the electorate) not an expert judge; and (ii) seeking almost to cross-examine their opponent, thus (as Bart concedes) the process is more akin to a trial than a moot.

Notably, Bart, did not answer the point about the demeanour of McCain - perhaps because he knows that the answer is an unpalatable one.

As for Bart's forensic advocacy skills, he does not vouchsafe to us any appellate decisions in which the judgment of the Court reflects his skills - and to be honest, I have seen no reported case in which he was counsel of record so I simply cannot express an opinion.

If there were any I would have expected to see them featured on his professional web site, but none are cited.

As we know, Bart is the epitome of reticence and modesty so it could be that in his professional capacity he does not wish to brag about his many appellate successes. Perhaps some other luminary of the Colorado bar will enlighten us all.

# posted by

Mourad : 7:27 AM

Mourad:

I'm well aware of what moot court is ... and as to the effect of the argumentative and persuasive skills. One moot court judge in my competition (a real judge in California) asked me afterward if I was in fact in favour of the position I'd argued (Pena in Adarand v. Pena); she was a bit doubtful based on my appearance, I guess (see here); I must have presented earnestly. She also told me that I'd need to cut my hair....

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 2:22 PM

Arne:

What can your Judge have been thinking about? You plainly had the forensic temperament since your coiffure was the nearest I have ever seen to a natural version of the full bottomed ceremonial wig of our Judges and Queen's Counsel.

See Wigs, Coifs,and Other Idiosyncrasies of English Judicial Attire - Prof C. Yablon

# posted by

Mourad : 4:19 PM

Oooops, I' m embarrassed. I argued the Adarand side in Adarand v. Pena.

Cheers,

# posted by

Arne Langsetmo : 11:51 PM

There is nothing better than a friend, unless it is a friend with chocolate.
Agen Judi Online Terpercaya

# posted by

Unknown : 12:29 PM