This Mac's For You

Let's talk about John McCain. Because he's been doing some talking lately. First on the housing crisis (in a speech two days ago) and then in yesterday's foreign policy speech. Let's take a look at both.

In yesterday's speech before the World Affairs Council in LA, Mac said that he believed in a humble foreign policy, with no nation building and...oh, wait. I'm sorry. That was someone else's speech a few years back. My bad.

Aw, c'mon McCainiacs, lighten up. I'm just playin'. This is what he really said. You should read it to make up your own mind about its content. I see an attempt to signal a more moderate approach than Mr. 32%Approvalrating. And if you're a middle-of-the-road voter, you'll like his stances on just about everything. Such as believing that the US needs "to listen to the views and respect the collective will of our democratic allies."; for vowing to close Gitmo, repudiate torture and work on global warming. You would probably endorse his hard line on Russia and his wariness of China. Fine.

My problem with McCain's speeches is that they rarely contain any innovative ideas. Declaring to fight malaria in Africa as if it's a new initiative? C'mon. He's got to know that it's one of President Bush's rare foreign policy accomplishments. A 'League of Democracies'? Hmm. Didn't a guy name Wilson try something like that? The fact is, there is not one "hey, that's a really good idea" moment in the entire speech.

Now, McCain's problem with this speech is that it ends with his defense of the war in Iraq. And look, he makes an eloquent case for staying there. The problem is, we've heard this before from less virtuous messengers. If there were no history of deception in the initial run-up to the war, most folks would gladly accept his rationale that our leaving now would be a humanitarian disaster. And that al Qaeda was now a presence that needed to be contained, whether they were there before or not. But unfortunately for McCain, we're having a "Who" moment: "We won't get fooled again." We're suspicious of rationalizing a conflict that does not appear to have a happy ending. Especially when it's costing us billions of dollars a week in the midst of a financial crisis at home. So even if Mac takes a not-so-veiled swipe at George Bush's recent comment about the romantic nature of fighting--"Only a fool or a fraud sentimentalizes the merciless reality of war."-- it doesn't distance him from that fool or fraud because of his unwavering stance on Iraq.

Speaking of billions of dollars a week, Mac gave an address on the housing crisis. The good news is that he breaks down the problem in an easy-to-understand way. So even if he's not an economic genius, someone who writes for him has a solid understanding of the situation. The bad news is that he says, "That leaves us with a puzzling situation: how could 4 million mortgages [out of 55 million] cause this much trouble for us all?" Well, let's see. If you have 4 miiillliion mortgages at an average of $200,000 a pop, that's 800 biiiilliion dollars. Just floatin' in the ether. And probably close to 10 million people displaced. Imagine all of New York City, looking for a new place to live. Definitely an issue. So implying that the scope of the crisis might be exaggerated given the small percentage of problem mortgages does not reassure me that he grasps the hustle and flow of our economic system.

And not surprisingly, the speech presents nary a solution. Now, there's a reason for this that has nothing to do with Mac's understanding of the crisis. He just doesn't believe the government should get involved. This is a pretty standard Republican stance: when the market screws up, the players need to take their lumps so they will change their behavior that created the problem in the first place. Ok. That's one approach. Didn't work so well in 1932 and, in fact, the Dems are hammering McCain as Herbert Hoover. This is clearly an exaggeration, but the point is, the government does get involved. With the support of Republicans. Which is why it usually results in a taxpayer funded bailout of these irresponsible corporate players. And this is what drives the average American crazy. Republicans want no oversight, no regulation until things fall apart. Then they accept a temporary government solution, but still resist oversight and regulation. Now, Mac says in his speech that he's not in favor of that kind of bailout. He insists he's not in favor of rewarding any of the players who didn't act responsibly. Great. But he didn't explicitly say that the Fed shouldn't guarantee the JP Morgan buyout of Bear Stearns, either. So, is silence assent? And is saying that nothing should be done courageous or lazy? Take your pick.

The bottom line on these speeches is that there is nothing controversial, nothing to make fun of, and nothing to really hang your hat on. They're cogent, but not revelatory. In fact, they're oddly passive. And I think in this election cycle, that's a problem. Even right of center folks are ready for a more responsive government.

It occurs to me that McCain would have provided the perfect move to the right of center from the Clintons in 2000. But in this election, he may not provide a stirring enough break with the status quo to win. But you never know. He' s not a guy you want to bet against. Ask the North Vietnamese.

Is McCain going to be able to separate himself from George Bush enough to win the general? Does he have to separate himself to win? Talk about this or anything else by clicking on 'comments' below, bypassing the Google sign up and hitting the nickname or anonymous button.