Why McCain’s “Maverickiness” Fails as Organizing Principle of Decision-Making

I wrote about this exact point here and here (though not in regard to the debate).

E.J. Dionne, Jr. writes about it in today’s Washington Post column, “Hockey Mom on Thin Ice:”

This week, McCain’s backers signaled their fears that [Alaska Governor and GOP VP nominee Sarah] Palin would fail by trying to discredit the debate in advance. Although it has been known at least since July that Gwen Ifill was writing a book on “Politics and Race in the Age of Obama,” the usual right-wing attack squad waited until two days before the debate to mount a campaign to the effect that Ifill’s book project turned her into a biased moderator. In her measured questioning, Ifill showed that the attack was nonsense.

The core issue, of course, is the contrast between how [Democratic nominee Barack] Obama and [GOP nominee John] McCain chose their running mates. Say what you will about Joe Biden [Dem VP nominee]– and last night, he was far from being either the gaffe machine or the windbag so many predicted would appear on stage — no one loses sleep at the idea of his being in the Oval Office. Obama picked a vice president more likely to help him govern the country than win the chance to do so.

As for McCain, he found himself in a political hole and threw the dice with Palin. At the time of her selection, voters were often compared with “American Idol” watchers who put personality and stage presence above everything else. But it turns out that Americans take the presidency very seriously. And surviving 90 minutes on a stage with Biden did not transform Palin into a plausible president.

Repeating ad nauseum: being good at shooting from the hip or being a maverick is only valuable in certain situations under certain circumstances.

But, as an organizing principle of governing a nation of 300 million diverse people and 50 diverse states for four years, 24/7? Shooting from the hip and being mavericky are the biggest liabilities voters could possibly endorse. And our insurance on people who claim to be uniters not dividers ran out seven years ago.

Update: I’m going to add this link to Charles Krauthammer’s column too because it also supports the belief that, as an organizing principle of governing, you can’t throw a Hail Mary each and every time you think you might need to or could benefit from it.

[John McCain] tempted fate one time too many. After climbing up on his high horse, McCain had to climb down. The [financial] crisis unresolved, he showed up at the debate regardless, rather abjectly conceding Obama’s mocking retort that presidential candidates should be able to do “more than one thing at once.” (Although McCain might have pointed out that while he was trying to do two things, Obama was sitting on the sidelines doing one thing only: campaigning.)

You can’t blame McCain. In an election in which all the fundamentals are working for the opposition, he feels he has to keep throwing long in order to keep hope alive. Nonetheless, his frenetic improvisation has perversely (for him) framed the rookie challenger favorably as calm, steady and cool.

Krauthammer rarely says things I like or the way I like them said, but the point is the same: frenetic improv versus calm, steady and cool.

Which looks more presidential to voters, specifically undecided voters?