The Lion and Gun

It's long been well-known in political circles that John McCain has a temper and a penchant for profanity that would make his seagoing peers blush, and it's not much of a secret that he has a proclivity for gambles. Yet I think that till now that's been inside baseball: to John Q. Voter, John McCain has been the candidate of wisdom and experience, and if he gets angry sometimes that's just a reflection of his maverickyness. Mavericks, after all, are supposed to get angry when it's called for. I mean, hell, you've seen Top Gun.

For many Democrats this maverick branding long proved frustrating. Tying McCain to Bush in voters' minds was an uphill battle, never mind that it's reflective of reality. But now, even as that idea has started to take hold, it looks like a doubling-down of McCain maverickism is exactly what the Dems need.

As James Fallows rightly observes, the McCain campaign has focused on tactics largely at the expense of strategy, particularly since Steve Schmidt took over the reins. As his campaign increasingly falls behind Obama's in the polls those tactical gambles have become increasingly risky.

And it could work, even without a game changer. The 'celebrity' ads effectively chipped away at Obama's lead. Sarah Palin's selection was an early success. The GOP Convention, despite losing a day and a weak acceptance speech by McCain, was a hit with voters. With the race structurally favoring Obama, McCain's handlers are hoping for that kind of a six-day story five days before the election, and they could well get it. In the meantime, however, those gambles feed into the idea that McCain is impulsive and tempestuous -- and feed that idea to the public.

Unlike a monstrous gaffe, this is the sort of story that seeps into the electorate's consciousness little-by-little. It happens more easily, of course, if it conforms to what voters already think they know about a candidate. That's why a foreign policy gaffe by 'inexperienced' Obama will always garner more media attention than John McCain, for example, not knowing the difference between Sunni and Shia. That's also why it's been difficult to portray a McCain Presidency as a third term of Bush.

Angry McCain, however, dovetails well with Maverick McCain. And what seemed harmless to most voters has now, it seems to me, jumped the shark.

McCain's temper tantrum at the Des Moines Register yesterday added to this narrative. So did his petty reaction to Obama on the Senate floor a few hours later. Not to mention his much-remarked-upon failure to look directly at his opponent during Friday's debate.

McCain's anger turns his well-manicured maverick label against him and for that reason opens a more effective line for Democratic attack. At the same time it undermines his other chief narrative, that of Experienced McCain. After all, it's not really the knowledge gained from experience that makes a longer-serving candidate more attractive to most voters, it's the wisdom. Experience is supposed to mean a steady hand at the till.

Right now McCain betrays no signs of that greatest fruit of his labors.

That this turn of narrative comes at a time of national crisis when what people want more than anything is a calm, confident leader has made it even more damaging for McCain. I think that this, as much as any built-in advantage a generic Democrat has on the economy, explains McCain's recent polling free-fall. Until now many have been afraid that a vote for Obama was a risk. At a time when McCain could use his national reputation to capitalize on that anxiety, he's instead made himself the bigger risk.