Preconceived notions

James Lileks fails the "grumpy Republican" test:

I'm approaching the new administration with a blank slate. I have no desire to walk around frowning in perpetual grumptitude, and it would be intellectually dishonest to prejudge everything that happens before it happens, or see the smallest act in terms of some broad preconceived idea. I thought that was an impressive victory speech, and if someone offers to earn your support, well, take him up on it.

I wasn't fond of Bill Clinton personally — never quite charmed me the way he charmed others, and he seemed to a man of substantial appetites, the most obvious of one was an appetite for attention and approval. In the 80s I HATED Reagan, of course, because he was an IDIOT who wanted to KILL US in a nuclear war for JESUS or whatever we believed so deeply back then. In both cases a personal aversion shaped my reaction to the message. You can make fun of the adulation that has been showered on Obama, and most of it seems silly if you don't have the leg-tingle, but he doesn't give me the Slick Willies. So this will be interesting.

Update: Steve Chapman asks the same question I was asking myself:

The notable aspect of John McCain's concession speech Tuesday night was how different it was from everything coming from his campaign in the months before. It was temperate, generous, and noble in spirit, and it made you wonder: Where has this guy been hiding, and why?

McCain's concession speech was — by far — the best public speaking I've ever heard from him. It was, oddly enough, very reminiscent of Paul Martin's concession speech after the 2006 Canadian election . . . certainly Martin's best speech of the campaign (if he'd spoken as well during the election, he might still be prime minister today). I don't think anything McCain could have done would have seriously changed the outcome of the US elections: the millstone of the Bush administration would have sunk any Republican candidate.