National security bona fides

In the aftermath of John McCain’s capture of the Republican nomination, allow me to offer a quiz. When Mr. McCain was being dismissed in the media last summer as a has-been, who laid down the following observation in his/her syndicated column: “Call me a contrarian if you will, but the gloomy media mood surrounding the McCain candidacy is a reflection of the unseriousness inherent in the presidential campaign at this point in the news cycle.”

OK, it was I, and, by gum, I ought to be big enough to admit it.

When I wrote of the “unseriousness” in the news cycle, I not only had in mind the media’s “mood swing” against a seasoned presidential contender with the credentials of a war hero but the media’s palpable euphoria over a Democratic contender whose negative ratings steadily ran at more than 40 percent. That would be Sen. Hillary Clinton, whose negative ratings today are up to 48 percent and will doubtless grow as she continues to reveal her devious and malicious sides. Last summer, the media viewed her as “unstoppable.” Well, the media was wrong both about Mrs. Clinton and about Mr. McCain. Yet, the journalists rarely smarten up.

Today they suffer what might be called divided euphorias. Some are euphoric about a freshman Illinois senator with no other experience in national government. Others are euphoric about a two-term New York senator from the most scandal-plagued presidency of the 20th century, who in her advanced state of obliviousness asks the electorate to admire her “experience.” She actually ran an ad recently inviting the electorate to ponder telephones ringing in the White House “at 3 a.m.”

Most Americans would rather not be reminded of what went on in the Clinton White House after hours and occasionally even during working hours. Did Mrs. Clinton have in mind her husband’s libidinous calls to Monica that went well into the early hours? Who knows? As I say, she seems to be oblivious about her record.

When I wrote about Sen. John McCain last summer, I thought those who were writing him off betrayed an ignorance of history and a lack of seriousness about political campaigning. I thought a man of Mr. McCain’s accomplishments would by historic standards be no more surprising a presence in the Oval Office than Dwight Eisenhower, John F. Kennedy or Ronald Reagan.

By contrast the Democratic front-runners would. Sen. Barack Obama then had but three years experience in the Senate and not much more of a record in state politics. Mrs. Clinton, as I have mentioned above, had massive scandals and a record tracing back to Arkansas of controlling “bimbo eruptions,” to which she more recently has added the fiction of her “foreign policy experience.” Anyone who wishes to consult the historic record will note that the “experience” she refers to is a series of world tours that her husband’s staff coaxed her into after her health-care embarrassment and such “snafus” as Travelgate and Filegate.

In autumn 2006, when I crashed Bill Clinton’s 60th birthday party in Toronto, I managed to be seated with his traveling aides and a few of his financial supporters. On that night I picked up two pieces of intelligence that are pertinent in light of Mr. McCain’s almost certain nomination. Mrs. Clinton was uncertain about running for president in 2008 and would wait to see how the off-year elections went in 2006. More interestingly, the Republican she most feared was Mr. McCain. Now after his most recent display of valor and political prowess, she has reason to fear him more. He is the most formidable presidential candidate the Republicans have.

Not long ago I dined with Mr. McCain’s state chairman in New York, Ed Cox, a gentleman of the top chop and one of the most politically savvy people I know. Mr. Cox pronounced Mr. McCain a “post September 11” candidate. He has learned from the challenges of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, one of which is to unite Americans against our enemies abroad. Mrs. Clinton is still off in the 1990s. She divides people, bemoaning the “politics of personal destruction” even as she practices them.

Mr. Obama, like Mr. McCain, is post-1990s. He is a uniter though vague about what he is uniting us for. Mr. McCain will unite us for our national security as the great Cold War presidents did. Moreover, he has demonstrated a keen sense of national security. He was an early critic of our faltering tactics in Iraq, a brave proponent of the surge, and the first of the presidential candidates to recognize its success.

Now Mr. McCain needs to secure the support of his conservative base. He is already at work on that project and surely he will succeed. What kind of conservative would reject him and allow either of the Democratic contenders to preside over our foreign or domestic policies?

R. Emmett Tyrrell Jr. is founder and editor in chief of the American Spectator, a contributing editor to the New York Sun, and an adjunct scholar at the Hudson Institute. His book “The Clinton Crack-Up: The Boy President’s Life After the White House” was recently published by Thomas Nelson.