The McCain campaign had to deal with two interesting comments - one from in the campaign and one from a conservative giant in Washington politics. The response from the McCain campaign tells us as much as the comments themselves.
The first comment was from Charlie Black, a senior member of the McCain camp. He was talking about the campaign to Fortune magazine. In the interview, Black started discussing the murder of former Pakistani Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto last December. He claimed that Bhutto's death was good for the McCain campaign because McCain could discuss the issue and the American people could see that McCain had foreign policy experience.
I am glad the murder of a Democratic reformer trying to pull Pakistan to Democracy is a "good thing" for McCain. Interestingly enough, McCain made similar comments himself at that time.
To be fair, I was also upset at Senator Clinton for her comments at the time which also seemed to politicize the tragedy.
But as if that was not enough, Black then decided to pull out the 9/11 card and play it. He then went on to say that if there was another terrorist attack on the nation, said attack would be good for the McCain campaign.
I think back to that horrible Tuesday in September when those planes hit the Towers and the Pentagon and those brave passengers helped crash the plane that was possibly heading for the White House or Capital Building. I think of those 200 some people that jumped to their deaths from the Towers because that was the better alternative. I think of the young man on the phone with the 911 operator begging her to rescue him as he was "too young to die" and the last words he uttered were "Oh, God" as the Tower collapsed and he knew he was seconds from death.
This kind of attack would be "good" for the McCain campaign?
Yes, McCain came out and said that he did not agree with Black's comments. But he did not fire him. Charlie Black is still a senior campaign adviser to John McCain.
So much for not politicizing 9/11 during this campaign.
I guess that just leaves the race issue. Oh wait ...
Then just a few days later we have another telling "gaffe" from Grover Norquist. In case you have not heard of Norquist, I suggest you Google his name. He is a leader in the neo-conservative movement and someone who McCain desperately needs to help him hold the far right wing of his party together. He has been a conservative giant in the GOP for years.
When comparing Obama with some of the recent prior Democratic nominees, he compared Obama to John Kerry by saying he was nothing more than "John Kerry with a tan". Huh? How is that not a race-based comment? When asked about it, Norguist's aides said that of course he was just saying that Obama was a different iteration of John Kerry and the "with a tan" comment did not refer to Obama's race. Right ...
Again, McCain knows not to upset Norquist so there was no condemnation of the comment. I know that McCain is an honorable person in this area. He has adopted children of different races. He was smeared in the South Carolina primaries by supporters of Bush eight years ago in some of the most ugly television ads playing to race because of his children. So why does McCain not take the high road and come out and say "I know this will hurt me in my party, but I deplore the comments of Norquist. Race will not be part of this campaign and I will speak out every time it becomes part of the campaign"?
I feel sorry for McCain in a way. Here is an honorable, war hero that will be redefined by this campaign. He will be defined by the ugly words of those he needs in order to win in November. It is too bad.
No comments:
Post a Comment