McCain: Deregulating Reality or Campaign by Anecdote

Like many other progressives, I watched the Friday night debates closely and felt sure that McCain had won the night. I was delighted and surprised to find that most after-debate focus groups gave the win to Obama, if not by a knockout, on points. Then I had to question myself about why was I so sure that McCain had won. Obama's performance was okay but not dazzling. He knew his stuff, but again, failed to invest it with sufficient passion, playing defense to McCain's attacks.

Obama was right on most points, except for the question of what to do about Afghanistan, where history shows that a massive army -- be it British or Russian -- cannot "defeat" a tribal society that lives in caves, hidden from view by the roughest terrain. See British diplomat and adventurer Rory Stewart's books on that country and you will find the clearest insight into the nature of these people and the futility of fighting a western style war in those mountains. Obama made good points about the absurd bellicosity of the Republican candidate, who stood nearby as a cartoon illustration of the huff and puff and blow your house down rhetoric that McCain reverts to when he doesn't have a flag to wave. Clearly for me, and those like me, Obama made the best case for his presidency -- he would be the informed and rational leader we need -- but McCain showed greater skills at moving crowds with flashes of passion. He was lovable, irascible Uncle Henry, a bit of a braggart, a sometimes bully, but a familiar family figure, full of jokes and stories. Quite simply, having honed his story-telling skills for the past year in the Karl Rove College of Advanced Mendacity, McCain is the better liar, the professional storyteller who knows how to manipulate an anecdote to his advantage far better than Obama.

I worried that the American public had been so seduced over the past eight years by self-serving stories -- rather than practical realities -- that the storyteller would always win the day. The Republicans have been trying to win this election by anecdote because they cannot win by facts and on their record.

Take the Eisenhower story. McCain spoke of Eisenhower's two letters written on D-Day, one an apology for failure, one triumphant after a success. Nice story. The fact that it did not connect to anything McCain said was typical of what he was doing. Oh, it may have had something to do with taking responsibility, a noble, manly virtue, but in what way did it apply to McCain, who had not, in this campaign, taken responsibility for any past mistakes, let alone the naming of the disaster waiting to happen -- Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate? The entire purpose of the story was "Hey, my friends, heh-heh, in case you haven't noticed, I'm another Eisenhower."

Stories about Eisenhower and stories about Reagan have one aim in mind -- to cover the speaker with borrowed glory -- the cheapest kind of name-dropping, Hollywood-style, virtue by association. Of course there was the repellent quoting of the wisdom of Henry Kissinger by both men, squabbling over who most agrees with Henry, the living gift of disaster that never stops giving. And then there was the revealing bit about the bracelet given to McCain by the mother of a solider killed in Iraq, a woman who begged him to wear it and justify her son's death by fighting on until victory. Before the warm glow of McCain's story was about to once again turn him into a walking war monument, Obama flashed his own bracelet from a war stricken mother with the opposite message, stop the war, bringing the battle of the bracelets to a draw. And like a vaudeville comedian with an old but always successful act, we waited for the eternal punch line in McCain's story, the POW years.

In all McCain's blathering about corruption in Washington I had hoped that Obama would mention the Keating Five -- the S&L scandal which nearly ended McCain's career, and will forever cast a shadow over all his protestations of fiscal virtue. But Obama the gent held back -- probably wisely. Leave ancient history to McCain, and focus on the dire present. Alas, I have to accept the fact that my candidate lacks my natural mean streak. Oh, how I wish I could lend it to him for the next debate.

Although I share an age with McCain, when I look at him I think not of myself, or my generation, but of my dear departed father and his generation, the WW1 and Depression era Americans. Dad was a great guy, but he never found a truth that he could not improve by turning it into a self-serving story. He was a successful salesman -- employing the old 20th century salesman's techniques of asking questions about the customer's family, the 'how are those great kids of yours?' the schmoozing of the customer -- in this case the voter - that I see in McCain. And I take personal offense at all that not so subtle appeal to the Jewish vote by vowing to protect Israel from Iran -- as if that was even an issue -- another low point in the debate for both candidates. Speaking with Iran may be the best way to help secure Israel, the diplomacy that McCain cannot allow. It is deeply offensive to any Jewish voter who cares about the fate of Israel, to have a candidate try to exploit such fears in this way.

Despite all those "my friends" of McCain's and all that blather about protecting the little guy (please, everyone, mercifully kill "Main Street" as the euphemism for just folks); it comes off as so much hyper-salesmanship. And all those "I was there to meet with President Whatsis and General You Know Who...to see for myself" -- more self-congratulation; McCain praising himself for touring the hotspots of the world on taxpayers money. It came off not as earned wisdom but as an old man's bragging as we braced ourselves for the slide show of travel pictures and celebrity photo-ops. What I most saw in McCain at that debate was raw ambition, covering a boiling rage with folksy tales and flashes of righteous anger -- anger which any sane man would think McCain should direct against himself. If he learned anything from Eisenhower's story of the two D-Day letters, he, McCain, should have opened the one which took blame for the catastrophic financial situation we find ourselves in today, a catastrophe aided and abetted by McCain, the financial world's deregulator, and one who continues to deregulate reality.

Read more reactions to the first presidential debate from HuffPost bloggers, including Nora Ephron, Bob Shrum, Madeleine Albright, Paul Reiser, Arianna Huffington, Sean Penn, Sheryl Crow, and more.

Comments

[Rembrandt]

You truly nailed the raw ambition which I saw for the first time at the 2004 convention when he hugged Bush after having been smeared by him. At that moment McCain revealed himself to be the unprincipaled person that he is.

Carol Levin

[scrutiny1]

"He was lovable, irascible Uncle Henry, a bit of a braggart, a sometimes bully, but a familiar family figure, full of jokes and stories."

Not to me he wasn't.

"Quite simply, having honed his story-telling skills for the past year in the Karl Rove College of Advanced Mendacity, McCain is the better liar, the professional storyteller who knows how to manipulate an anecdote to his advantage far better than Obama."

Get a clue. That's exactly why he lost. People are sick of Karl Rovian lies and manipulation. They want truth and they want to talk about the issues.

"I worried that the American public had been so seduced over the past eight years by self-serving stories -- rather than practical realities -- that the storyteller would always win the day."

Americans are not as dumb as Republicans think they are.

[Leatherhelmet]

The deregulation argument is a loser.

Freddie and Fannie were government sponsored entities --- they were government regulation at its finest --- or in this case government's worst.

Bush and McCain both tried to fix --- aka regulate --- the problems in Freddie and Fannie in 2003 and 2005. Obama, Biden and Barney Frank all voted to stop the fix on the problem.

If you want to point fingers -- point them at at Obama, Biden and Frank.

[unite4change]

Don't believe talking points. Let me suggest you do a little homework on real estate hedge funds.

[unite4change]

Wonderful article, Mr. Yellen.
This debate was about the economy with an obligatory nod to national security and foreign policy, two subjects tied directly and dependent upon....guess what, The Health of our Economy.
Look no further than the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 for a huge part of the failure of our government to protect it's citizens from the greed and criminal excesses of the richest 2 percent of our population. Blood is on the hands of both parties.
The Bill itself (S. 3283) was introduced in the Senate Dec. 15, 2000, by Sen. Lugar (R) and co-sponsored by Sens. Gramm(R), Fitzgerald(R), Hagel(R), Harkin(D), and Johnson(D). The bill was never debated in the Senate and was signed into law by Pres. Clinton on Dec. 21, 2000.
This act essentially blocked regulatorsfrom controlling tools new to Wall street such as credit "swaps". These are instruments like sub-prime mortgages packaged and sold as securities. Neither the SEC nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission were able to examine financial institutions like hedge funds or investment banks to guarantee they had the assets necessary to cover losses they were guaranteeing.
This Act also contained what has come to be known as the " Enron Loophole" and was drafted by Enron Lobbyists working with Sen. Phil Gramm. The bill and subquent Act was enthusiastically supported by Sen. McCain.

[conradelledge]

9/27/08

Dear Sherman,

Thank you for the "deregulate reality" tendencies John seems to need in order to keep his story straight, you know, believable. I laughed hard for a good long while when I saw John was still intending to "deregulate reality".

The scoring of the first debate thing is more simple perhaps than you discuss. Only one candidate said responsibly end the Iraq War. Only one candidate described an active program to capture Osama bin Laden and defeat the Taliban. Those are gigantic things. Can you imagine the size of the wrist bracelet you would have to wear if Osama bin Laden were never brought to justice, you know, I mean real justice and not no stinking Alberto Gonzalez justice. I mean drug out and capped justice. Wouldn"t we all be a little happier if we had already or still could lay some hard justice on Osama bin Laden. Yea, that really strikes a chord for me.

We need to think how to get Obama elected and how also to then help him solve the problems facing this nation. We need positive contribution from everyone.

Conrad C. Elledge

[martymartymarty]

THANK YOU for asking for an end to that "on Main Street" crap! It's so poseur. That and when they talk about "over the kitchen table" it's just so condescending.

[RepugsOut08]

McCain couldn't even look Obama in the eye the whole debate. Whatever character he still has left would not allow him to lie to Obama's face. He had to lie into the podium. Your analogy of the Eisenhower letter, and McCain's failure to take responsibility for the economic breakdown this week is very apt.
It reminded me of another public servant who DID follow the Eisenhower example. Richard Clarke turned to the victim's families at the 9/11 hearings, and told them that he, along with their government, had let them down. A rare act of responsibility in this day of blame the other guy.

[gemcando06]

Personally, I am going to vote for Obama, and this debate didn't change my mind. McCain's behavior during the week was a puzzle to me.
He's not going to campaign, he's not going to show up at the debate, he's going to Washington even if he has no opinion on financial crisis because he didn't read the proposal.

Looks like McCain had to debate himself, and his staff too before he could debate anyone else.

[darker]

McCain is NOT A DECENT MAN. McCain PROTECTS THE REPUBLICAN NANNY STATE FOR THE RICH. No thanks. He never saved anybody. He's not a "hero".

We cannot afford any more REPUBLICAN LIARS, THIEVES billing the diminishing Middle Class Americans.

We can't afford Republicans any more!
NO MORE YEARS for Republican CORRUPTION, DECEPTION, DEREGULATION and ENRICHING THEIR RICH and their corporate welfare queens.
Enough already.

my vote's for common sense, reason, responsibility, Obama-Biden.

[DixieMelody]

HEAR! HEAR!

DITTO! DITTO!

YUP! YUP!

[oldfart1]

In fact Susan Eisenhower, in a Kansas twang that reminded me very much of her grandfather (whom I regard as America's last great President), gave a thoughtful 5-minute speech at Denver, explaining why she supports Obama. She must have been under a lot of pressure from her friends to "stay the course" as a Republican. Now she can smile to herself, and her friends wish they had switched too.

It's not too late: there is always room for those who have strayed from the path of righteousness to return to it.

[jennbeez]

Eisenhower was the last principled republican.

[Bailey Reynolds]

McCain's lucky Obama's such a gentleman.

Sherman wrote:

But Obama the gent held back -- probably wisely. Leave ancient history to McCain, and focus on the dire present. Alas, I have to accept the fact that my candidate lacks my natural mean streak. Oh, how I wish I could lend it to him for the next debate.

This has been my biggest qualm with Obama! I'm so ready for him to take off the gloves and put on the brass knuckles. McCain has more than earned a good rhetorical and intellectual a$$ whipping.

Despite the above, my judgement: Obama 1; McCain ZERO

[sticksnstones]

Wonderful article, Mr. Yellen.
This debate was about the economy with an obligatory nod to national security and foreign policy, two subjects tied directly and dependent upon....guess what, The Health of our Economy.
Look no further than the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 for a huge part of the failure of our government to protect it's citizens from the greed and criminal excesses of the richest 2 percent of our population. Blood is on the hands of both parties.
The Bill itself (S. 3283) was introduced in the Senate Dec. 15, 2000, by Sen. Lugar (R) and co-sponsored by Sens. Gramm(R), Fitzgerald(R), Hagel(R), Harkin(D), and Johnson(D). The bill was never debated in the Senate and was signed into law by Pres. Clinton on Dec. 21, 2000.
This act essentially blocked regulatorsfrom controlling tools new to Wall street such as credit "swaps". These are instruments like sub-prime mortgages packaged and sold as securities. Neither the SEC nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission were able to examine financial institutions like hedge funds or investment banks to guarantee they had the assets necessary to cover losses they were guaranteeing.
This Act also contained what has come to be known as the " Enron Loophole" and was drafted by Enron Lobbyists working with Sen. Phil Gramm. The bill and subquent Act was enthusiastically supported by Sen. McCain.

[downwithbs]

As befits McCain's shoot-from-the-hip style, the Republican candidate said that Eisenhower wrote two letters on the eve of the Normandy invasion. One of them, he claimed, was a letter of resignation.
This is factually untrue. What the former president wrote was that if the invasion were to fail, all the blame should be assigned to him.
It's clear that Senator McCain--booster of banking-law deregulation, cheerleader of the biggest military blunder in our history--is certainly not a soldier of Eisenhower's caliber.

[Bailey Reynolds]

And he's no foreign policy expert, either, despite the prevailing mythology.

He claimed that Pakistan was a failed state (pre-Mushareff).

Once again, he got very confused in the heat of the moment. I'm disappointed the pundits let that one get away without further comment.

[michaeledward]

I am 44 years old.

McCain' mention of "Normandy" just does not connect with me. Sure, I know what he is referencing, but they are events that came about two decades before my birth.

I imagine with the mobilized young voters flocking to the Obama camp, the references to Reagan are just as out of touch.

What constituency is McCain reaching for with these out of date references?

Mr. Leher's framing of the Eisenhower question, however, I can see direct relevance to today; with so much money going to defense, how can we keep the economy strong? I think it was an error for McCain to not connect that question to the issues of TODAY.

[elbzee]

The last thing a Keating 5 criminal wants is to remind people of his part in the debacle.

[unite4change]

It is not my intent to seem disrespectful, but older people generally don't think about the future, they discuss the past. Their heyday.

[geedafotus]

This is the exact quote by McCain from a Senate bill he cosponsored in 2005 and shot down by the democrats.
"I join as a cosponsor of the Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform
Act of 2005, S. 190, to underscore my support for quick passage of GSE regulatory
reform legislation. If Congress does not act, American taxpayers will continue to be
exposed to the enormous risk that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac pose to the housing
market, the overall financial system, and the economy as a whole." Sen John McCain

Now who's telling a lie?

[Snowball]

Well, aside from the fact that that particular "reform" was little more than more of the same deregulation that got us where we are, what's your point? There's real reform vs. a reactionary step backwards. Just because Republicans brand their free market ideology as reform, doesn't make it so.

[unite4change]

But he supported this first.


Wonderful article, Mr. Yellen.
This debate was about the economy with an obligatory nod to national security and foreign policy, two subjects tied directly and dependent upon....guess what, The Health of our Economy.
Look no further than the Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 for a huge part of the failure of our government to protect it's citizens from the greed and criminal excesses of the richest 2 percent of our population. Blood is on the hands of both parties.
The Bill itself (S. 3283) was introduced in the Senate Dec. 15, 2000, by Sen. Lugar (R) and co-sponsored by Sens. Gramm(R), Fitzgerald(R), Hagel(R), Harkin(D), and Johnson(D). The bill was never debated in the Senate and was signed into law by Pres. Clinton on Dec. 21, 2000.
This act essentially blocked regulatorsfrom controlling tools new to Wall street such as credit "swaps". These are instruments like sub-prime mortgages packaged and sold as securities. Neither the SEC nor the Commodity Futures Trading Commission were able to examine financial institutions like hedge funds or investment banks to guarantee they had the assets necessary to cover losses they were guaranteeing.
This Act also contained what has come to be known as the " Enron Loophole" and was drafted by Enron Lobbyists working with Sen. Phil Gramm. The bill and subquent Act was enthusiastically supported by Sen. McCain.

[jaynevada]

Part 4

"Is John McCain a once in a lifetime politician?" continued

I believe that the economy is the most important issue facing the country. McCain has been getting a lot of flak for saying he doesn't know much about the economy. That is just further evidence about his honesty. No politician is an economics expert. Rather their job is to hire the right experts for the job. The federal deficit needs to be brought under control. When McCain says he will cut spending and curb the deficit, he is the one I believe. He will be the one who will hire the experts to get the job done.

There is a lot of money that is going to be spent of TV advertisements attacking McCain. A common refrain is "He used to be good, now he has gone bad". Of course that is what the opponents are going to say, as McCain's past is clearly good. A 72 year old man doesn't become something different from what he was for the first 71 years. He is still the same McCain.

Disillusionment with politicians is an almost permanent feature of politics. McCain represents an opportunity of a lifetime to break out of this morass of disillusionment and cynicism.

Character and courage are the rarest of politicians' virtues, and McCain is that rarity.

JS

If you like this article, please email it to your friends.

End Part 4

[elbzee]

Can you say KEATING 5?

[truesteam]

You are right. A 72 year old will always be who he is. I submit John McCain has proven weak character throughout his life. He is a politician, he blows with the wind. His "maverick" is contrived. The "reformer" only became a reformer after being caught. He has only been a reformer in image. 26 years, what specificly has he reformed and then walked in that path?
He dumped his wife in cruel fashion. He is said to have an insulting temper, he is undignified (that showed last night) Keating Five, Keating Five, Keating Five. This is President of the United States. To allow this man to be our President with full knowledge of his corruptness and error in judgement, would be an insult to the office.
He hides behind his wife's skirt where his finances are concerned. He will not allow the American people to see his medical records.
He writes legislation then worms his way through questionable loopholes. He has gone full force to appleal to the ugliest in human nature in this camp. He is willing to lie and distort, anything to win. He is weak in character, now, and has been all along.

[goldnchyl]

I'm just curious. You've had many positive things to say about John McCain over the past few weeks. I must admit that I was never so familiar with him as I've become. I feel your passion for his candidacy and, based on the information you've cited, plus my limited knowledge of his history, I can understand why. He was probably the one Republican candidate out of the bunch that could effectively launch a "change" campaign, which consistently polls high in voter wants. But you must admit that the way McCain has been behaving throughout his campaign, and specifically since his choice of Sarah Palin for VP, is nothing short of certifiable. From the early gaffes confusing Sunni and Shia, the Czech Republic, to the more recent daily shift of position on the economy and antics designed to give credit where credit wasn't due. The irresponsible and borderline treasonous choice of Sarah Palin is enough within itself to disqualify him based on questionable judgment. He is not the John McCain of the past, as many former associates have noted. I say former because he doesn't seem capable of interacting with anyone who may criticize him. His inability or unwillingness to even look at Barack Obama during the debate was creepy and his ease with disrespect and stretching the truth, discomfiting.