I found myself stunned beyond all belief at McCain's response to Mr. Ayers attacks. I instantly thought for sure this line would be this decade's "I Knew Jack Kennedy" moment. As I pondered the implications of the thought process of McCain's [handler's] that could somehow possibly develop this sentence, let alone speak it during the last debate of a general election, I found myself more and more stunned, yet frustratingly confused, by Republican ideology, governance, tactics, and patriotism. I actually thought this was way more damning than his "allegedly air quotes" gesture to women's health.
Here is the specific quote:
MCCAIN: Yes, real quick. Mr. Ayers. I don't care about an old washed-up terrorist.
Read the quote again. Think about the possible meaning of this seemingly incomplex sentence.
I honestly felt sorry for the Republican true-believers, thinking this line would be 120-pt font banner headlines in every newspaper by morning, their entire ideological farce shaming even the most hawkish members of their constituency. I thought it would be the line instantly repeated. I was wrong. It was not even noticed.
Help me figure out why below.
(UPDATE: I realize they claim its about Obama's judgment and not about Ayers, but let me point out that they successfully used the exact same guilt-by-association tactic to link Iraq to 9/11 as the base for their entirely fraudulent premise of the war, and Bin-Laden has already basically become the "old washed-up terrorist" that they really don't seem to care about.)
I couldn't recall a comparable situation in politics that could help me comprehend the enormity of that devastating shame and burning embarrassment one gets in the spectacularly rare instances in life when a specific moment actually forces a sudden recognition of an equally sudden realization that everything you honestly, truly, and passionately believe in is rendered an unequivocal fallacy. Shocking political scandals are not comparatively adequate (think Edwards true-believer's heartbreak)-- because they don't invalidate an entire platform and it's political movement. The closest thing I could come up with was a perceptive kindergarten-aged child accidentally noticing Santa's beard stashed in the back pocket of his father's red pants a few minutes after Dad just missed Santa's annual visit and is forced into an early two-and-two-together situation by natural logic.
What's the meaning behind the thought process that would allow this line to be said?
Obviously those of us who are political geeks instantly recognize the line as a tactic meant to help absolve McCain of gutter politics he once - long ago - claimed to be against. It was meant to soften his appearance as a negative-only character assassin. So... can someone please explain to me how in the hell a presidential debate prep team, a campaign staff, and a candidate all allow their true world view to slip out in such an idiotic and caviler line -- perplexingly used to lie about such a petty attack? Especially since McCain also contradictorily claims it is imperative that our leaders lie to the the American public in order to not "telegraph our punches" to any perceived enemies? And why no news source or blog noticed, commented, or discussed this debate moment?
Yes, I'm aware that "it is McCain," would usually be answer enough. But not in this case.
What was the meaning of this line? Why would McCain telegraph a punch-recoiling to terrorists that they simply need to become old and washed-up for a McCain presidency not to care about them?
As soon as the debate was over, I rushed to DKos, expecting a giant thread about this line. No mention. I ran through all my favorite blogs this season - Andrew Sullivan, MyDD, Jed, Ben Smith, Swampland, Wonkette, on and on - only to find no mention. I rewatched the debate online and still no mention of this line on the 'net, so I decided to write this here.
So, what is the meaning behind the thought process that would allow this line to be said?
That if Bin Laden waits it out and changes his ways, becomes 'rehabilitated' and a model contributor to society, that the Republicans/McCain actually will not care about him anymore? Is this a justification for ignoring Bin Laden in order to fight in Iraq? Or to abandon our 'caring about him' if it looks to be a weak tactic in protecting America? OK, maybe McCain only meant terrorists in the United States are granted this dismissive opinion.
So, does this mean McCain does not support the search and persecution of [former] Nazi war criminals who rehabilitated and live(d) productive lives in the US? Oh, maybe McCain only meant domestic terrorists.
So, does this mean McCain wouldn't have "cared" about Timothy McVeigh had his guilt been unproven or charges against him dropped, and he became a professor at a prestigious university? Oh, surely McCain meant only terrorists like Ayers who made small bombs, not ones that kill scores of people in building-sized explosions.
So, does this mean McCain wouldn't have "cared" about Bobby Frank Cherry being convicted for the 16th Street Baptist Church bombings because he was found after he was an "old washed up terrorist?" Maybe McCain only meant domestic terrorists that, regardless of their "rehabilitated" status, are disputably known to have never killed anyone? Or possibly McCain only "doesn't care" about admitted terrorists when, even though their guilt is proven and profited from (such as book sale earnings), they are domestic in their terrorism, didn't kill anyone, are legally free citizens because of prosecutorial misconduct, and "rehabilitated" into society with respectable lives after their spat of terrorism.
Or, worst for true-believer republicans and a wink to liberals, perhaps McCain meant that he believes in our fluid, beautiful-even-with-its-flaws judicial system and respects the constitution in ways that mean he isn't willing to do anything about "capturing" or "prosecuting" or any kind of retributive act for terrorists if they are free after due process - because even though this horrible terrorist is a professor in Chicago, McCain sure hasn't done anything, or written law changes, or argued for any kind of further persecution of Ayers in the decades since the 70s (i'll get to his stupid book quote controversy further down). In fact, I don't recall McCain really mentioning him much until this particular election cycle. Sorry, make that domestic terrorists, because we know all the terrorists in Guantanamo get no such expressions of respecting any judicial system or due process or constitutional rights or Geneva convention support from McCain.
Perhaps, most fatally and soul crushing for his supporters, with this single sentence, McCain was trying to shoot his campaign in the stomach by openly admitting that he was not honest or serious about the Ayers attacks on Obama, or admitting the attack had such little importance that McCain actually really means he does not care about "old washed-up terrorists," but rather cares only if it is you that happen to know or met one. And I'm sure McCain also thinks the hundreds of people in the world with degrees from ChiU that happened to have Ayers as a professor can't be trusted in their lives either, regardless of known truths about them.
"I don't care about old washed-up terrorists." I guess chasing terrorists to the gates of hell has an expiration date then. God forbid Bin Laden, or any terrorist wanted by the government, becomes old and washed-up before the end of McCain's [now-impossibly improbable] administration! God forbid McCain just covertly offered the Ayers Path to future domestic terrorists or radical organizations that use violence or destruction to make a point. After all, McCain has informed us thousands of times that violence and destruction is necessary to the United States as a tool of persuasion rather than the treasonous act of ever talking to adversaries. I guess McCain was suggesting this macro-hatchet foreign policy tool of destruction can be applied micro-scalpelly to domestic matters and eventually no one will "care" about it. Given his other stated policy positions, we probably can assume that similarly, McCain would immorally pursue justice against abortion clinic bombers with the same "eventually I don't care" mentality, or "doesn't care" about the dangerously treasonesque offers of violence expressed at his and Palin's recent campaign rallies.
===============================
So, can anyone please help me figure out why this line wasn't mentioned, picked up on, or reported after the debate?
Being a midwesterner, raised in the reddest of red states, I've spent most of my adult life trying to understand how how Republicans view the world in the way they do. I've spent a decade doing my best to figure out how to see through their red-tinted glasses. At this point in my life, I thought I finally had a decent approximation of understanding their views. Strongly disagree, but an understanding.
Then McCain said it. That one despicable line kept repeating in my head during the rest of the debate. After it was said, each time McCain looked into the camera doing his faux attempt to 'connect' with the viewers, I'd hear him say this. Each time, a progressively colder chill ran down my spine. Each time, I was startled to notice myself more and more angry at McCain's words. Each time, I actually felt a brief sadness grow for true Republican believers -- the majority of people I know in my area. I really did feel a little sorry for them. I felt it was the equivalent of our party leader, our candidate, dismissing the one unifying blue principle that, with the exception of the Blue Dogs, we all share - progressivism, suddenly being exposed as a scam, mistakenly expressed to the public in a one line attack dismissal, of course ignoring the big difference being that our progressive views did not take us into two wars, bring our country as close to bankruptcy as anyone can remember, dishonor the victims of 9/11, and expose our patriotism to be a giant scam. Comparatively, Republicans have their "National Security" issue. Imagine being a true-believer Republican and hearing from the very top that national security, protection of America, the constitutional sacrifices pushed through, and bringing terrorists currently at war with our American ways has hidden disclaimers of either:
a) that chasing Bin Laden to the gates of hell and bringing terrorists to justice at any cost has an expiration date in the vague term "old washed-up," and if captured and freed after due process by prosecutional misconduct leads to an eventual "don't-care-ness" from the government
b) that for decades, your party leaders honestly do not care about domestic terrorists freed on technicalities until someone else may or may not be lying about knowing that person, but oddly only during hard-fought campaigns
c) that your party's presidential candidates strongest argument for votes is such slanderous scam - their strongest argument is Obama can't be trusted for knowing a former terrorist (that we never seemed to seriously care about persecuting these last 25 years or so) and instead you should vote for McCain - let me repeat, is such a slanderous scam of an argument that the candidate himself declares out loud "I don't care about an old washed-up terrorist," -- and not in a flippant comment, not in an internet ad, not in a television ad, not through a surrogate, but during the final debate on national television from his own mouth - that their final stretch, October-surprise strategy is such a transparent, dishonorable scam that it could lead to a single-sentence unraveling of all National Security policy perceptions and expose your party's patriotism as nothing but a shallow, all-bark-and-no-bite disguise. Not only could, but DID lead right to this exact humiliating public admission. Republicans eventually "don't care" about terrorists that become "old, washed up" rehabilitated people, invalidating all their arguments for fighting the Taliban, for pursuit and continued "caring" about terrorists, invading and still fighting in Iraq, and justice for 9/11.
or just possibly:
d) that republican tough-guy national defense posturing actually means nothing because in that one sentence, McCain managed to broadcast the fact that deep down, they have an ideological viewpoint farther to the left than most liberals would ever admit: that if you do reprehensible things in life, that not only can you "rehabilitate" yourself and become a contributing member of society - even lets say, by becoming a professor at a respected university, for example - and profit from your reprehensible days - even if it means taking some minor flack from the right for saying something stupid 20 years later in order to make those book sales - that you are basically going to be square with them and have a fine life. Can you only imagine if the republicans extended this "I don't care about an old, washed up" view not only to former terrorists, but how about locked up non-violent drug abusers? Not only former terrorists, but how about petty theives locked up for repeat offenses? Screw it, while we're at it, not only former terrorists, but rapists, non-serial murderers, and all 'crimes of the poor' are all less severe crimes than terrorism. Why don't they extend that view to those people as well?
Maybe its the case that McCain and the republicans have a requirement that "don't care" only applies to criminals who are older, white, rich, and have the lawyers (or legal technicalities/loopholes) to avoid prosecution or jail time. I'm not sure, but i'd be willing to guess that a ChiU Professorship, a controversial book commercially published (and as a bonus, endlessly having your name in the press for weeks) and various board memberships would work together to push you into the top 5% income bracket.
And apparently, they think if you are one of them, i.e. being white, rich, and somehow/anyhow beating the legal system, that is enough for them to dismiss your past crimes (stock trader crimes, corporate or environmental fraud, abuse of power convictions, etc.) and stay mute enough to allow you to lead a wonderful life. Even being taxed by the republicans for being a left-wing radical only earns you slight slander by way of a bad nickname(For Ayers, this is "Terrorist," but hey, he's rich, white, and free). Obama, for crossing paths with this Mr.Terrorist, is the one at fault.
Please help me make sense of this and the total non-interest of debate reactions!