McCain: They Don't Like Him, They Really Don't Like Him
Senator Charles Schumer was on to something when he said a couple of weeks ago that John McCain is not "the most likable fellow." Schumer, whose hard work and salesmanship make up for his own likability challenges, was referring to one of McCain's now infamous debate performances. In truth, this general election campaign is the first time most American voters have had a chance to see McCain unfiltered and unvarnished (except for the pancake make-up his campaign insists he slap onto his face: he would be better off showing some scarring than looking embalmed). And they do not like what they see.
Forget about McCain's poor grasp of economics, his limited view of foreign affairs (so aptly called out by Colin Powell) and his flip-flopping on the environment, energy and stem cell research. Forget, even, about his lack of judgment in picking Sarah Palin, his erratic response to the financial crisis and his obsession with Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher. It is the disconnect between what voters expected from a maverick war hero statesman and what they saw during the debates: an angry, petty, envious creature not in control of his own physical or mental faculties. Gail Collins of the New York Times has provided the best description: he is Gollum, from Lord of the Rings ("We wants it. We needs it. Must have the precious.")
For over a decade, many voters have liked the idea of McCain: basically, a party-bucking military guy with a sense of humor. The problem was that it was all conceptual, mostly the creation of a bunch of journalists whose reverence for McCain verged on the dirty. Bob Schieffer, for instance, called himself dangerously beguiled by the Arizona Senator (now that's a mental picture one could easily do without). It may well be that alcohol-fueled bus rides and one-on-one encounters with McCain produce man crushes even among the most old-school of journalists, but that is not most voters' experience of him. Now that McCain has to play to a national audience without the benefit of much of a filter, we are seeing him for who he is, and a majority of us are recoiling at the vision.
His campaigns for Congress and for the Republican nomination in 2000 exposed him to a tiny fraction of voters in just four states: Arizona, where he has not faced a hard fight in decades; Iowa, where he is so utterly disliked that he is sure to lose the state Bush won in 2004; in New Hampshire, his political home away from home (where he is nonetheless lagging in polls); and in South Carolina, where this year Republicans finally came to the realization that he had not been guilty of miscegenation. Indeed, outside of Arizona, he has only had to face a small, motivated group of voters from his own party. Even this year's GOP fight was not especially enlightening to voters nationally: most barely followed it and for those who did, McCain was but one in a large group of flawed candidates who enjoyed about 90 seconds of debate time each.
This means that until very recently most Americans have only known the McCain that the media has presented through sound bites, worshipful paeans to his bipartisanship and glowing portraits of his maverickness. It is little surprise, then, that when Gollum shows up in debates and, to a lesser extent, at other public appearances, it is a bit of a shock. The result: McCain is seriously struggling in half the states won by George W. Bush in 2004, some of them scarlet red. Yes, the economy and the incumbent do not help, but it is hard to believe that a more congenial candidate than McCain would not be doing better.
Let's not underestimate the importance of a candidate's likability and how much it matters beyond policy, beyond even character to some extent. Bush had neither great policy ideas nor character, yet he was able to pull off two victories, including a convincing one in 2004. Before voters felt utterly conned by the current President, a majority liked him enough to vote for him. It is incomprehensible to many of us, but it is a fact that Bush was able to convince most Americans that he was a good guy, with simple tastes, their kind of humor, the high-school athlete next door, or something like that. They knew he was an alcoholic, draft-dodging, wealthy, patrician cheerleader, but it did not seem to matter. Of course, they now feel utterly stupid that they were duped by an imbecile, and thus he will leave office with extraordinarily low approval ratings, after eight full years as president. Perhaps this explains how quickly Palin's own approval numbers have crashed: how many times can you be swindled by a dangerously ignorant and inarticulate aw-shucks politician without realizing it will destroy your country?
Before he severely dented the esteem many Democrats held for him, during this election's primary season, Bill Clinton could do no wrong: it is no small feat for an American politician universally known to be a serial adulterer to be elected and reelected to the presidency. This surely is a testament to the good will Clinton's personality was able to generate among voters. Barack Obama's burden was slightly different: clearly charismatic in any setting, he had to prove he was competent, partly because of his relatively short experience (comparable, however, to Clinton's) and, frankly, because of his race. It is one thing to like Will Smith (the top box-office draw in the US and worldwide in recent years), LeBron James (top paid team athlete) or Tiger Woods (top paid athlete, period), but another altogether for many white voters to like AND vote for an African-American political candidate, especially for the presidency. It seems, though, that Obama has passed both the likability and competence tests.
The expectations McCain brought to the race were impossibly high to fulfill, thanks to decades of media cheerleading and his ability to believe in his own hype. Were he more disciplined, a la Hillary Clinton, he could pull it off, acting the part as if he believes it and staying in sync with the image that has been carefully crafted for him for years. Perhaps he is simply too tired to try, or care, or be able to do so. Instead, he sticks out his tongue (literally), rolls his eyes, clenches his jaw, paces like a madman; he drips with sarcasm, seethes with anger and opens his eyes wide in fake outrage. For all the inanity of the debates, let's be grateful for this: we now know who the real McCain is, and he is not the one that the intoxicated media said he would be.
Follow Paul Jenkins on Twitter: www.twitter.com/PaulcJenkins
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Sticks and stones, Mr jenkins. Calling McCain "an angry, petty, envious creature not in control of his own physical or mental faculties" although inflamitory and an insult to McCain supporters will not stop them from voting for him. However, to suggest the main stream media has been a "cheerleader" for McCain is simply false. Obama is the real media darling, and they have not asked him the tough questions. Why do they not scrutinize Obama the same way they do McCain? Probably because they will not like what they see, and because it is pollitically incorrect to do so. I do not expect ivory tower liberals to be in McCain's camp but to turn a blind eye to Obama's lack of experince, the holes in his tax plan and the fact that he has the most radical left wing voting record in the US senate is both ignorant and dangerous.
The excellent book, "Free Ride", documents the press's role in creating and perpetuating the fiction of who John McCain is.
And they -still- spin and cover for him daily--piling on Obama over trivia or GOP talking points, while ignoring story after story that reflects badly on McCain.
I don't know if he could have won, but if he hadn't decided to BE Bush--to use all the dirty tricks and advisers that Bush uses in HIS dirty campaigns--the good press would have continued, in spite of his ignorance of economics and ridiculously overblown ideas of his own foreign policy expertise.
McCain himself blew up the so-called Straight Talk Express. Even the friendly media couldn't keep that fiction going alone.
Bravo.
Finally, may we have a discussion of the huge part the Press played in the making of the John McCain myth?
May we begin to unravel all of the pandering, dishonest, obsequious adulation of those passengers on the "Straight Talk Express"?
The Press created the public image of John McCain.
It is the responsibility of the Press to correct the inaccuracies.
You hit the nail on the head! I voted for McCain in the 2000 Michigan primary, and I wonder where that candidate went to ? Granted, I recognized how fake Bush was, and at least back then, McCain made amore attractive candidate then Bush. the guy running today has been exposed as an "empty vessel". He has no original thoughts of his own, and is relying on advisors to tell him what to say and think. He has switched from diverting us with talks of Joe the Plumber to saying that Obama is pushing a socialist agenda with his tax cuts. Stupid angle, but the thing that really makes me wonder is if McCain even knows what socialism is? It was clear when the right was calling the left appeasers, many people on the right had no idea where that term came from, and what it meant?
"one-on-one encounters with McCain produce man crushes even among the most old-school of journalists"
Never heard it called this before ... but it does explain the positive press. What gets me is that when the mask slips as it has for so many ... when the bought personna can be seen through why do so many in the press try to cover it up ... why.
Thank-you Paul Jenkins. This article is spot on! What my family and I are MOST disappointed by is NOT about Senator McCain, but that we were manipulated into believing in that well crafted image, even wondering why he was so different in this election cycle from it. NOW, we have that 'duped' feeling or sense that you discussed and despise him for having been part of the manipulation.
I have admit, I was looking for the John McCain that the media seems to adore. Unfortunately, I think that one got lost in blind ambition.
McCain/Palin - Hate you can believe in.
No, what Paul is saying, McCain was NEVER really that image. He was always 'lost in blind ambition', even before the media got a hold on him. What this election has done is revealed the real Senator McCain for who he really is.
It's going to get worse as last night the Daily Show did a segment in Alaska where a member of the Alaskan Independence Party said their goal was to separate from the lower 48 and that Todd Palin had been a member. This will likely get lots of play all over the Internet.
While the MSM might adore McCan't, the internet has NOT been kind to him.
The internet is the underground railroad.
Unfortunately though, that's probably why people who don't live in areas where it's easily accessible are voting for McPalin.
McCain is employing the same unprincipaled people and the same dirty tactics used against him by Dubya in 2000. So how is that being a maverick?
NO right minded, sane, decent, moral person would teamup with those people that would try to destroy you and your family. John McCain teamed up with those people .. now that's what I call a Maverick
I don't have high def - did he have a level of make-up on that was visible during the debates?
his lips were a lovely shade of Palin Pink.
"..except for the pancake make-up his campaign insists he slap onto his face:.."
It may be shallow, but really, I find this horrendous too. A male P resident who can't present himself in public without his make up on? And we're not just talking ordinary TV powder puffs either.
I read in an English paper once, that his monthly cost of make up rivaled that of C indy. And it's not just placed on the scars, it's the whole face, obviously giving him a "younger", healthier look. So, even that is deceitful, because people don't really know what this man actually looks like without make up.
Add to that the fact nobody knew the "real" Mc C ain, and he's been a total fake all along.
it's kind of funny how it's the exact OPPOSITE of the problem Nixon faced (pun intended) - not ENOUGH makeup.
McCain has a positive (first I've seen in a while) commercial that ran this morning on the Today Show. It shows him sitting in a living room. It's not high def, but it was striking because it's the first I've seen him without makeup, or at least that cakey makeup that fills in the big creases on his face.
I don't know if these are scars or just severe age lines. But wow, without that heavy make up, I was immediately struck by how old McCain really looks. Because usually his skin looks smoother than mine (I'm 38) and I always thought, how is that possible?
Now I know.
If you're talking about the ad where he says the last eight years haven't been good? Well, that's him with make up on. I guess you'd freak out if you saw him totally without. I wonder how Cindy does it when they go to bed. Uuugghh.
They should make the presidential election process a reality TV show. It should be a cross between real world and survivor.
Oh, and with a little american gladiator mixed in between. Nothing like pugal stick action between two middle aged men (or seniors, depending on the candidates, I suppose...)
I think the campaign this year has been like a soap opera.
He is just so arrogant. It is as if he believes that he is ENTITLED to be president because of his service in congress, the senate, and even more because he was a POW. These are not credentials that ENTITLE you to be president.
In all seriousness, I wasn't aware there were ANY credentials that ENTITLED one to be President.
completely agree with your analysis here, 2000 was my first campaign and before I decided to vote for Gore I was interested in McCain,
I remember this year's Republican primary. And the right wing talk show hosts at that time were not shy about pointing out the angry, arrogant , two-faced McCain.
Ron Paul 08!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
