I just returned to Akron from Washington, DC. I’d planned to finish blogging tonight on the NJDC policy conference. I will — tomorrow. In the meantime, I want to say something about McCain’s September Surprise — his call to postpone debates.
If you want the partisan red meat on this, click over to Huffingtonpost, which has a huge screaming headline “McCain Wants a Time-Out,” over a picture of a slightly dazed McCain. Or, watch the clip from Letterman, who got wind of McCain’s announcement during the taping of the show. This, from Drudge:
Earlier in the show, Dave kept saying, “You don’t suspend your campaign. This doesn’t smell right. This isn’t the way a tested hero behaves.” And he joked: “I think someone’s putting something in his metamucil.”
“He can’t run the campaign because the economy is cratering? Fine, put in your second string quarterback, Sarah Palin. Where is she?”
I want to take this in another, more personal direction.
I was sitting in the audience at the policy conference when the NJDC board chair announced the breaking news that McCain was seeking to postpone the debate. A sort of audible boo-hiss rose from the crowd. I heard at least a couple people make mock chicken sounds. Bawk bawwwwwk.
I’m the Neurotic Democrat, though. I immediately worried: What’s he up to? As soon as I had the chance, I walked upstairs and found a TV at the bar. It quickly became apparent that McCain was positioning this as he had positioned the postponement of the GOP Convention with Gustav bearing down. He was assuming the mantle of leadership, rising above partisanship. It worked for him then — reporters went gaga over his presidential, for-the-good-of-the-nation posturing. Why wouldn’t it work for him now?
I had no idea what Obama should do. Once again, I fretted — as with Sarah Palin — McCain had thrown the world, starting with me, for a loop.
I went back downstairs and started asking everyone I could for their opinion on what Obama should do. A well-respected pollster suggested Obama should hold the economic debate the next night. A top Democrat in the Jewish community said he hoped Obama would stand firm — and make the point that a president should be able to multi-task.
That’s when an Orthodox rabbi, also a Democrat, said confidently that Obama should call McCain’s bluff. He reminded me of Rudy Giuliani’s move to postpone elections after 9-11, extending his term as mayor. Mark Green acceeded to Giuliani’s request. Green’s primary opponent Fernando Ferrer did not. And Green paid a steep price, as this NY Times article from September 2001 recalls:
These contrasting positions, in a year when all the candidates have struggled to balance criticism of Mr. Giuliani with praise of his tenure, caught the eye of many Democrats yesterday, among them Green supporters who were not happy with the turn of events. Some suggested that Mr. Ferrer, who waited for Mr. Green to issue a news release backing Mr. Giuliani before announcing his opposition, had seized the higher ground, at least from the perspective of Democrats who tend to vote in a primary.
Mr. Ferrer said that although the mayor had performed admirably since the attack, his handling of the crisis did not justify changing the law to allow him to linger in City Hall. Mr. Green, who is the public advocate, said he was trying to ensure that the city had an orderly transition during a difficult time.
Essentially, Ferrer was able to accuse Green of being rolled by Giuliani. ”Many Democrats may be suspicious of this kind of arrangement,” Howard Wolfson, Hillary Clinton’s communications director, told the Times. “Freddy looks big. He looks principled.”
Though Green held off Ferrer in a close run-off election, he eventually lost the mayoralty to Michael Bloomberg, 49 percent to 47 percent.
This may just be an apt comparison for what happened today.
What unnerved New York voters at the time was the suspending of the rule of law — and upending the orderly succession of power — especiallly given the tinge of potential partisanship that it carried.
In the same way, these presidential debates were planned a long time ago, by a bipartisan debate commission. They are an essential part of how we Americans determine the crucially important task of electing our leaders. Everything about them — from their timing to their spacing — is intentional, and agreed upon in an orderly fashion in advance. Suspending them would be a very big deal — and therefore it shouldn’t happen except under the most extraordinary conditions, for instance if our very national security were clearly and imminently at stake. And under no conditions should it happen in a way that gives one of the candidates a political boost.
Perhaps if McCain had avoided the whiff of partisanship — by discussing it with Obama in their conversation earlier in the day, before going to the media — the two could have worked out a mutual agreement, truly keeping politics out of this.
But, we now know: He didn’t. He cold-cocked Obama, who found out — like the rest of us — on CNN.
Obama had the wisdom to see that. And he had the good judgment and even temperament to react accordingly, calling McCain’s bluff, and declaring his intention to move ahead with the debate, exactly as planned.