A top aide to John McCain made a boo-boo when talking to a Fortune magazine reporter. But the mistake isn’t what he said. The mistake was thinking that he could in fact express an honest (and absolutely true) theory about the result a terror attack would have on the upcoming presidential election.
Charlie Black’s basic crime, for which he is being rebuked by his own candidate as well as the opportunistic folks in the Obama camp, is saying that a big terror attack between now and November would help McCain’s chances.
Scandalous? Not so much. But just as in southern society, in politics some truths you just don’t speak. Barack Obama learned that lesson when he discussed why God and guns were so precious to many voters. Now Mr. Black is taking his own personal tutorial.
Nevermind that both men make strong points. In Mr. Black’s case, he has the 9/11 attacks to point to as proof of his theory. Prior to 9/11, George W. Bush was the lamest of lame duck presidents. And how often can you say that about someone in their first term? After 9/11, Bush was the champion of freedom and he marched on to a second term that no one would have bet a large sum of money on his achieving back in 2000.
But nevermind the specific example that supports what Black said. Let’s look at the disingenuous response from John McCain when asked about it. McCain said:
“I cannot imagine why he would say it. It’s not true. I’ve worked tirelessly since 9/11 to prevent another attack on the United States of America. My record is very clear.”
But see, here’s the point, Black didn’t even remotely imply that McCain was hoping for a terror attack to boost his campaign. That would be absurd and Black’s sanity would need to be questioned. What he said was that if terrorists succeeded in striking a U.S. target then the very act would help McCain’s chances in the election. That much is undoubtedly true.
National security concerns in recent history have favored Republicans. They are the strong national defense party and Democrats are… let’s just say not. Whether true or not, that is the perception. Not to mention, in this case we have an ex-military man versus an Ivy League lawyer who is starting to be labelled an arrogant dilettante.
What I find more and more disconcerting is the demonization of people speaking the truth. Black didn’t say anything that should be controversial. Black didn’t say anything that should hurt John McCain’s campaign. He expressed a couple of political truths. He should be applauded for answering a question honestly as opposed to spinning back to message. His truth gives us something to think about. His truth gives us a question to ask ourselves. If we as a nation would vote for John McCain after a terrorist attack, which I agree with Mr. Black that we would… then why not now?
Charlie Black’s mistake was not in saying what he said. Charlie Black’s mistake was believing that a thinking man can speak to other thinking people without resorting to political smoke and mirrors. Or maybe it was just to believe that we were thinking.
