That’s how Beldar describes John McCain’s post-election behavior:

John McCain has failed this test of his own character.

The would-be commander-in-chief surely still had the clout to summon the top twenty-five or so campaign aides into a room for a “Come to Jesus” meeting, a “we aren’t any of us leaving this room until I know who leaked those comments” meeting, a “you aren’t any of you ever going to work in politics again until we find out who’s to blame for this” meeting.

Instead, he goes on Lenno and shrugs his shoulders, minimizing the whole episode. That didn’t make anyone famous. That affirmatively encouraged this crap to continue, not just in this campaign but in future ones.

I practice a profession in which secrets are important. I understand the concept of fiduciary duty. I’ve employed people, professionals and staff alike, who — simply by virtue of working for me — have been made subject to the same bright-line, absolute standards that I’m subject to. Very, very rarely, someone in my employment has breached that trust — and my reaction has been ruthless and thorough and instantaneous. Yes, there have been a few times when I’ve enjoyed firing someone, and have gone out of my way to make sure that anyone who cared to make future inquiries about hiring that person would find out exactly why they were fired.

McCain’s background as a military officer ought to have acquainted him with high ethical standards and the need for their consistent and vigorous enforcement. He almost flunked out of the Naval Academy at the end of every year he spent there, based on conduct demerits, but he never once had an Honor Code violation.

Senator, this was an Honor Code violation by someone on your staff. And you just blew it off. There was no shame in losing the election. But there is definitely shame in this.

Also, thoughts on the willful gullibility of people who believe the idiotic lies about Sarah Palin:

People joked about “Bush Derangement Syndrome,” and about “Palin Derangement Syndrome” as its successor. But at some point this kind of thing stops being a joke and becomes a genuine cognative disability — an inability to process and deal in a rational fashion with objective data because of a bias that is so intense that it blocks out reality.

I can’t explain it. I just hope it’s a temporary, acute problem rather than something long-term or possibly organic, like the sort of brain tumors or lesions of which Dr. Oliver Sachs writes in his book, “The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat.” I’m not being at all snarky here. Rather, I’m entirely serious, because I have considered Dr. Joyner a friend, and I am genuinely concerned for his mental health. He, Andrew Sullivan, and others in their camp are completely persuaded that they can see a degree of ignorance in Gov. Palin which is utterly inconsistent with anyone’s ability to function as the governor of any state, but to which hundreds of thousands of Alaskans were absolutely blind for many years despite a much better opportunity to assess Gov. Palin first-hand. That kind of thinking represents a break with reality, one that’s not funny at all, but genuinely sad.

[Via David Blue, who has a number of other reasons to be glad that John McCain didn’t win the election. But they don’t, unfortunately, constitute reasons to be happy that Barack Obama did. We were screwed either way, primarily because the media selected both candidates.]

[Update a few minutes later]

I wonder how many people actually voted for John McCain (that is, voted for him because they liked him, and thought he would be a good president)? I suspect that the vast majority of McCain voters were either voting against Obama, or for Palin, or both, but they weren’t voting for McCain. It seems to me that those people who actually like McCain, either personally, or on his eclectic policies, probably like Obama even more (e.g., many in the media). So hardly anyone voted for him. And this is also the reason that the Republican turnout was relatively low. The candidate had no attraction to them.

Now, more than ever. Self-styled “progressives” seem to continue to be unaware of their own shameful intellectual history.

Some thoughts on Obama, Weatherpeople, and Sarah Palin, from Camille Paglia:

…my concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign. Obama may not in recent years have been “pallin’ around” with Ayers, in Sarah Palin’s memorable line, but his past connections with Ayers do seem to have been more frequent and substantive than he has claimed…

…Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views.

How dare Palin not embrace abortion as the ultimate civilized ideal of modern culture? How tacky that she speaks in a vivacious regional accent indistinguishable from that of Western Canada! How risible that she graduated from the State University of Idaho and not one of those plush, pampered commodes of received opinion whose graduates, in their rush to believe the worst about her, have demonstrated that, when it comes to sifting evidence, they don’t know their asses from their elbows.

Liberal Democrats are going to wake up from their sadomasochistic, anti-Palin orgy with a very big hangover. The evil genie released during this sorry episode will not so easily go back into its bottle. A shocking level of irrational emotionalism and at times infantile rage was exposed at the heart of current Democratic ideology — contradicting Democratic core principles of compassion, tolerance and independent thought. One would have to look back to the Eisenhower 1950s for parallels to this grotesque lock-step parade of bourgeois provincialism, shallow groupthink and blind prejudice.

I think she gives the press too much credit for their ability to wake up.

[Update late morning]

It may have been politically incorrect for Michael Barone to say it, but I think he’s right when he points to Palin’s greatest sin in the eyes of much of the media and the left:

“The liberal media attacked Sarah Palin because she did not abort her Down syndrome baby,” Barone said, according to accounts by attendees. “They wanted her to kill that child. … I’m talking about my media colleagues with whom I’ve worked for 35 years.”

Barone, a popular speaker on the paid lecture circuit, is a senior writer for U.S. News & World Report and principal coauthor of “The Almanac of American Politics.”

About 500 people were in the room, and some walked out.

Guess the truth hurts. That was obvious to me at the time as well, with all of the criticism of her for having the baby. She was a huge threat to the pro-abortion (and yes, that’s what much of it is) movement.

In Minnesota. It looks like this election is being stolen, right before our eyes.

This sort of thing is why I’m not inclined to believe any of the Palin smears. It’s really astounding how polarized people are about her.

To start fighting the “Fairness” Doctrine.

Yes, I know that then-Senator Obama said that he didn’t support it, but do you think that he’d really veto it if it came to his desk? Really?

I was too tired last night to attempt to say much of anything intelligent, let alone eloquent. But I’ll start by repeating my congratulations to President-elect Obama. From snippets that I’ve heard this morning, his acceptance speech was appropriately gracious to his opponent, but I have to confess that I didn’t hear the whole thing because I had gone to bed. My impression is that it didn’t differ a lot from his stump speech, except he left out the lies about his opponents.

As I noted last night, one thing that I am not unhappy about, and is a large silver lining in a larger dark cloud, is that we have elected an African American (in this case, quite literally) to the highest office in the greatest nation on the planet. I always expected the first black president to be a Republican (or at least a conservative of some stripe), because I didn’t anticipate a Barack Obama, who between his apparent (not at all to me, but clearly to many) charisma and the aid of a fawning press that refused to discuss his history with any seriousness, managed to transcend not just his skin tone, but his far-left political history. I hope that Michelle is finally proud of America, and that we can finally get past race. But I fear that we’re not yet there, for those who are more comfortable continuing to play the easy role of victim. Either way, Barack Obama is the next American president, which means, for better or worse, that he is my president. (As usual) I agree with Lileks:

I’m off to the Mall to sell razor blades so people can scrape off their “Question Authority” bumper stickers. Just remember: Dissent is still the highest form of patriotism. Except now it will be practiced by the lowest form of people.

Seriously, though: congratulations to President-elect Obama. Right or wrong – and I hope for more of the former, obviously – he’s my President now, dammit, and I’m not going to spend four years treating him with the contempt the Kos side heaped on Chimpy McPretzelchoker. He could turn out to be a horrible President. He could turn out to be a great one. History pushes people in unexpected directions.

I am on long-standing record as calling him unelectable in this nation. How did I get it wrong?

I don’t think that his election was at all inevitable. It was a combination of many factors–the country going crazy in the wake of the financial crisis, the overwhelming amount of money brought to bear (much of it raised illegally) in his support, the truly egregious bias of the press, and an awful campaign by John McCain. I have to confess that I also expected the Clintons to do more than they did to sabotage him. It’s surprising, in retrospect, that it was as close as it was.

With regard to McCain’s campaign, Jennifer Rubin has a list of the many things that McCain did wrong, though I don’t know if he could have won it. But he could have made it a lot closer, and helped staunch the bleeding down ballot even more. The one thing she didn’t mention (though she hinted at it with some of her particulars) was that he should have been running against the most unpopular institution–Congress–which makes George Bush look like a rock star in popularity by comparison. He should have pointed out all of the things that have happened in the two years since the Democrats took over the Hill. Indeed, he should have simply pointed out that it was the Democrats who were running Congress, because much of the electorate seemed to be unaware of that fact. He shouldn’t have voted for the bailout bill. But he couldn’t do it, because he is John McCain. He is a great man, but a mediocre candidate, and would not likely have been a great president.

I’m glad that part of the reason that he lost is because of his own atrocious (and yes, that’s the word for it) and unconstitutional McCain-Feingold legislation, and that by completely blowing past it, Barack Obama has rendered it meaningless and irrelevant for future elections, even if it’s not actually rescinded. I would also note that while I do think that the Obama campaign violated federal campaign finance laws on a massive scale, by deliberately disabling AVS on their on-line credit-card donations, I also think that they’re bad laws. I hope that we can change them to remove contribution limits, but require full disclosure. Frankly, I don’t even care if foreigners want to contribute to American political campaigns, as long as we know who is doing it and how much. That is information that the voters deserve to know, and should be a legitimate campaign issue. The Clintons played the same dirty game, with Riady and the Chinese, but the media refused to dig into it and point it out.

And as I’ve noted before, because the press refused to air Obama’s dirty Chicago laundry during the campaign, we’re going to have another Clinton-like presidency, in which scandals from the past continue to pop up. Will he pardon Tony Rezko? Why didn’t anyone ask him? Will he replace Patrick Fitzgerald (indeed, every US Attorney, as Bill Clinton did)? I also fear that (as with the Clintons) the thuggery displayed in the campaign–against Sarah Palin, Joe the Plumber, anyone in Missouri who had the temerity to “lie” about the Obama campaign–will continue in the new administration, except this time with the full power of the Justice Department and the FBI behind it. It is going to be an interesting four years.

I’m glad that it wasn’t the blowout that many hoped for, and many feared. He won convincingly, but not sufficiently to have a mandate (particularly considering how gauzy his campaign promises were). Neither the House or the Senate had the gains expected by the Dems, and while having Stuart Smalley in the Senate would be entertaining (though not deliberately so on his part), I’m glad to keep one more vote to staunch a Democrat tide. I’m also glad that any changes on SCOTUS are likely to replace leftist squishes, and not true liberals (such as Roberts, Scalia and Alito), thus preserving the status quo rather than shifting it further against freedom.

I don’t envy the president elect. I pointed out when he won the nomination that it was almost an accident–he wasn’t supposed to win this year; it was just a practice run. Now, he’s in another moment of the dog who finally caught the car that he’s been chasing–what does he do with it? He’s got the choice of going with his leftist instincts (I’m assuming that he really does have these, and isn’t as completely cynical as he would have to be in order to have hung out with vile people with whom he completely disagreed politically, such as Ayers, Dorhn and Klonsky) and alienating much of the country (which truly doesn’t understand what they just elected), or moving to the center and being more politically successful, but outraging the Kossacks and Moveoners at his betrayal. That, too, will be interesting to watch.

My biggest feeling right now, frankly (and I’m sure that it’s one shared by almost everyone), is relief that this ridiculously long campaign is over. It’s time for defenders of human freedom to regroup, take stock of the world as it is, rather than as we’d like it to be, and figure out how to move it from the former to the latter. Whether the Republican Party will be the appropriate vehicle for this remains to be seen, but as has been clear to me for most of my adult life, the Democrat Party will never be. They remain children of Rousseau, though they don’t realize it, and I will continue to follow Locke.

[Update a while later]

Steven den Beste says it’s not the end of the world, and has some predictions, one of which is quite disturbing. I loved this ending line:

…no one will be spinning grand conspiracy theories about this administration’s Vice President being an evil, conniving genius who is the true power behind the throne.

If I were a praying man, I’d pray for Senator Obama’s health every day. I’m continuously amazed at people who think that Joe the Biden is presidential material, or even of above-average intelligence. Or even average.

[Another update a couple minutes later]

John McWhorter says that it should be the end of racism as a political issue, and makes the same point that Thomas Sowell has been making for years:

The new frontier, however, is apparently people’s individual psychologies: Not only must we not legislate racism or socially condone it, but no one is to even privately feel it.

The problem is we can’t entirely reach people’s feelings. The social proscription has changed a lot of minds, especially of younger people who never knew the old days. But an America where nobody harbors racist sentiment? The very notion goes against everything we know about human hardwiring: Distrust of the other is inherent to our cognition.

Psychology has provided us with no method for rewiring brains to eliminate that. After describing one of countless studies revealing subliminal racial bias, Nicholas Kristof recently intoned “there’s evidence that when people become aware of their unconscious biases, they can overcome them.”

Oh, really? “Can,” OK–but how often do they? How do we reach everybody? Do we mean overcoming bias so thoroughly that a test looking for what’s “out there” would not still reveal it? It’s a utopian pipe dream.

Now, if this racism of the scattered and subliminal varieties were the obstacle to achievement that Jim Crow and open bigotry were, then we would have a problem. But yesterday, we saw that this “out there” brand of racism cannot keep a black man out of the White House.

Might it not be time to allow that our obsession with how unschooled and usually aging folk feel in their hearts about black people has become a fetish? Sure, there are racists. There are also rust and mosquitoes, and there always will be. Life goes on.

It should be time, but as I said, it’s a lot easier to continue to play the victim, and blame white racism rather than community pathologies for your problems. I was glad to hear Barack Obama tell young men to pull up their damn pants, and hope he continues to do so. I hope that he comes up with a job in the administration of some sort for Bill Cosby.

My ongoing fear of the Rousseauians is that they believe that they can remake man. They believe in thought crimes, and will attempt to both detect them, and stamp them out.

[Update a few minutes later]

One other thought on racism. Does anyone imagine that, with his resume, Barack Obama would be president elect if he were Barry O’Toole, a white guy?

[Mid-morning update]

Tim Ferguson has thoughts on the battle for individualism.

[Update a few minutes later]

I (as is often the case) agree with Mark Steyn:

Obama was wrong about the surge, and McCain was right. But, because he was right, Iraq went away, and his rightness and Obama’s wrongness didn’t matter. And, in his closing address in that final debate, McCain was left using tough, hard words like “honor” and “sacrifice” that seemed utterly ridiculous after an hour and a half in which the candidates had been outcompeting each other to shower federal largesse for those behind with a couple of mortgage payments. But that gets to my basic point: You don’t want “issue” candidates. You want candidates who can place whatever the headlines happen to throw at you within an internally consistent worldview.

For what it’s worth, I never want to hear the word “maverick” again as long as I live. As I said a while back, that’s an attitude, not a philosophy.

I’m not unhappy that John McCain lost. He’s an admirable man, but much less so as a politician. I’m just unhappy that the Republicans couldn’t come up with someone better, and that the Democrat won.

I’m watching a rally in DC with Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

What has Harry Reid done to justify his increase of the majority of the Senate?

What has Nancy Pelosi done to justify her increase in her House majority?

Why did no one in the MSM ask these questions during the campaign?