July 10, 2007
You need to be able to run a rather large organization...
Patrick Ruffini, on McCain...
....Until today, John McCain had four highly capable aides who could have easily vied to be his Karl Rove. That was the problem. No one was really in charge. As a 24 year veteran of Congress, this shows how poor McCain's management instincts really were, and demonstrates why Senators rarely get elected President. Marc Ambinder essentially confirms this in the tick-tock:The sources said that Nelson's position as campaign manager was precariously positioned from the start because McCain did not endorse a campaign structure that would have given Nelson absolute authority over messaging, finance and strategy. Republicans directly familiar with the negotiations to bring Nelson aboard said that McCain promised Nelson that no one but him would have the ultimate say in making and executing campaign decisions. But McCain did not follow through on those promises, these Republicans said.Even a perfect campaign couldn't have nominated John McCain, but his reluctance to give one person ultimate responsibility for strategy certainly didn't help...
Even if McCain were not flaky on several important issues, the fact of his apparent lack of management skills ought to disqualify him.
Posted by John Weidner at July 10, 2007 10:52 AMI never thought I could support McCain, and I still doubt I will (because of that flakyness thing). But I hope he rebounds from this and runs a strong primary.
Iraq is not a situation that needs to be managed, it is a war that needs to be WON. He seems to get that better than the other guys and I'd like to have him around to keep every one else honest.
And if, in the end, Giuliani or Romney start to hedge on Iraq (and for some reason I think they might) I could actually see myself pulling the lever for McCain.
Posted by: Mike Plaiss at July 10, 2007 12:18 PMCan't argue with that.
And I read somewhere—maybe Dafydd or Dean Barnett—that he was actually one of the first to say that we were using the wrong tactics (Search and Destroy) in Iraq, and should be using the Counterinsurgency tactics that are now showing such success...
Posted by: John Weidner at July 10, 2007 12:21 PMHe may have been one of the first to disparage search-and-destroy, but that doesn't necessarily make him right.
Search-and-destroy is what you do when you don't have the troops to clear-and-hold. Our preferred tactic is for the Americans to do the clearing and the Iraqis to do the holding, so the limit in the equation is the number of Iraqi troops. We most likely couldn't have done the surge any sooner.
Mike
Too true. Same thing is true about the abortive first battle of Fallujah. those who decryed our failing to take and hold the town never explained exactly who was going to do the holding...
Posted by: John Weidner at July 10, 2007 07:37 PMMcCain? For President?
One word (or is it two?):
"McCain-Feingold"
The man's a closeted totalitarian.
No, thanks. I only hope the Libertarians have recovered from their post-9/11 blame-America-first spaz-fit by 2008......
Posted by: Hale Adams at July 10, 2007 10:50 PM
