Are You Experienced?
By Mitch Berg
Charlie Quimby wonders just how much experience counts for. He’s not completely impressed:
But McCain’s “experience” is subject to some skepticism.
First, there’s the tour as POW. Hard to match, and certainly impossible to criticize. But can we be frank here? Serving five-plus years in a North Vietnamese hellhole has less to do with running the country than installing tail lights on Chevy Malibus has to do with preparing someone to run General Motors. Street cred to the max, but relevant experience?
Now, Charlie, that’s a strawman in a black pajama-fabric uniform carrying an AK47 and a copy of the Little Red Book.
Nobody says that being a POW counts as government experience.
But it is a sign that Mac is a person of unshakeable integrity. Compare and contrast:
- After years of barbaric torture, one of our candidates was offered an early release by the NVA. He refused to be freed ahead of his comrades.
- After weeks of criticism, one of our candidates cut loose a man he’d described as his “spiritual mentor” in his first book.
You, as always, be the judge.
Then, stringing out his Naval career, a post-service whirlwind courtship of Arizona money and its attendant House seat, leading to succeeding Barry Goldwater as Senator.
And this is bad – or even atypical in Senate-level politics – why?
Early in his Senate career, McCain gained valuable experience as a waterboy for Arizona S&L crook Charles Keating, Jr. McCain’s image as a reformer and straight talker got manufactured soon after.
And, absent party grudges and partisanship, wouldn’t that be considered a good thing under most circumstances? Someone who aqcuires a nasty smudge spends the rest of his career trying to be Mister Clean?
(As opposed to creating “MoveOn.org”, “Fight the Smears”, or engaging in a media effort to turn “swift-boating” into a pejorative verb)
But it’s “experience” that’s going to be the siren song for moderates and fearful liberals. McCain will keep us safe. He’ll be tough with dictators and terrorists. He has… like, all this, you know, experience.
Now, Charlie, I’m sure the scare quotes count as an argument among the “Daily Show” set, but really – what exactly are you impeaching about a multi-decade political career that’s seen him embraced and ostracized on both sides of the aisle?
June 25th, 2008 at 7:38 am
For the past 7 years we’ve heard the President Bush wasn’t fit to be Commander in Chief because:
A) He didn’t service in combat
B) His kids didn’t enlist
Now that J-Mac has both of those qualifications, they aren’t important anymore. Kind of like all of those Democrats who told me over those same 7 years that if McCain ever ran for President, that he is one Republican they would support and vote for, yet suddenly now that he is running, they dislike him. The goalposts move quite fast.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:02 am
At least Obama started wearing an American flag lapel pin. After he figured out, you know, like, some people really dig America and all.
June 25th, 2008 at 8:38 am
Someone who acquires a nasty smudge spends the rest of his career trying to be Mister Clean?
as opposed to say, Harry Reid who wont explain his dubious associations with lawyer Jay Brown, boxer Gary Bates, or Jack Gordon and Frank Rosenthal. And has never explained why he was referred to as “Mr. Cleanface” by Joey Agusto and Deil Gustafson on FBI wiretaps at the Tropicana Casino in the late 70s
June 25th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
The thing to remember about Charlie is that he doesn’t operate by reason alone, but by reason tempered by feelings.
If a thing is completely logical A-B-C, but he doesn’t feel good about being at C, then he ignores it.
We saw this repeatedly in his conversation with Rosenberg over proposed reforms to Minnesota gun laws. He couldn’t refute any of the logical arguments but he didn’t feel good about where they ended up, so he ignored the logic and went with his feelings.
Certainly, this happens on both sides of the aisle. But it seems to be more visible on the Left side.
.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Nate,
I know it’s always unsettling to Vulcans when they have to deal with Earthlings, but you’d think a logical guy could distinguish between arguing from feelings and arguing about the role of feelings employed in decision making. The Joel Rosenberg discussion was really about getting gun opponents listening to Joel’s case and my trying to get across to his crew that purely “logical” arguments are unlikely to win the day.
I wasn’t trying to refute Joel’s side, so naturally, I didn’t. In fact, I came out of the whole thing more sympathetic to his case.
As for the McCain post, it was provoked by someone citing McCain’s experience as a reason to vote for him, without considering his policies, ideas or likely court appointments. “Experience” by itself is not a good criterion for hiring some one or voting for some one, but I suppose your logic says it is.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:13 pm
“Experience” by itself is not a good criterion for hiring some one or voting for some one
Of course! I’d be lying if I didn’t admit I’d vote for a Jindal/Palin ticket over, say, Reid/Byrd in a heartbeat.
I was quibbling more with your qualitative analysis.
June 25th, 2008 at 9:43 pm
Mitch.
See above. The post wasn’t about impeaching McCain, it was about whether “experience” is a way to pick a president. Let’s have the campaign and hear from the two nominees now that they’re not running against other people.
As for my questions about McCain that I didn’t get to, if anyone really cares they can read about:
His foundation
http://tinyurl.com/42vbhr
How his ex-POW status will still be counted as “experience”
http://tinyurl.com/5k42u7
His relationship with wealthy people who want something, post-Keating
http://tinyurl.com/56kavk
His on-again off-again pastoral relationship
http://tinyurl.com/6nmzxn
His position on a gas tax holiday
http://tinyurl.com/699v5w
…