Maligning McCain Washington Post
John McCain has always gotten great press, especially since he started riding around New Hampshire in a bus in 1999 and conducting rolling news conferences with reporters that would last for hours. McCain fell short in that election, of course, but he emerged as the media's favorite maverick. In the first Bush term, McCain won some battles in which he challenged his own party--on campaign finance reform and an anti-torture amendment--that further burnished his legend as an independent truth-teller. John Kerry, you may recall, even begged him to run on the Democratic ticket. During that whole time, McCain never presented himself as anything other than a rock-ribbed conservative, albeit one who took moderate stances on a few issues. I lost track of the number of liberals who told me privately that they would vote for McCain, even though they disagreed with him on a whole bunch of things, because they viewed him as a leader, war hero and straight talker. But now, in the early maneuvering for 2008, the Arizona senator (who has been going out of his way to back the battered Bush) is seen in many quarters as the front-runner. And, the ridiculously early CW goes, if he gets the GOP nomination, he would be a good bet to win the White House. The result: The left is trying to rough him up a bit. He is, some commentators are shocked to discover, not just a Republican but a conservative. Maybe it was easier to romanticize McCain when he was basically a protest candidate, but now that he's a potential president . . . well, I suspect that this is only the beginning. One columnist who's gone hard after Johnny Mac is the NYT's Paul Krugman: "It's time for some straight talk about John McCain. He isn't a moderate. He's much less of a maverick than you'd think. And he isn't the straight talker he claims to be. . . .
"But now -- at a time of huge budget deficits and an expensive war, when the case against tax cuts for the rich is even stronger -- Mr. McCain is happy to shower benefits on the most fortunate. He recently voted to extend tax cuts on dividends and capital gains, an action that will worsen the budget deficit while mainly benefiting people with very high incomes. "When it comes to foreign policy, Mr. McCain was never moderate. . . . Mr. McCain still thinks the war was a good idea, and he rejects any attempt to extricate ourselves from the quagmire. . . .
"When it comes to social issues, Mr. McCain, who once called Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell 'agents of intolerance,' met with Mr. Falwell late last year. Perhaps as a result, he is now taking positions friendly to the religious right. Most notably, Mr. McCain's spokesperson says that he would have signed South Dakota's extremist new anti-abortion law." In American Prospect, Mark Schmitt strikes the same theme, saying potential McCainiacs should "have no illusions: McCain is a very conservative Republican who has now embarked on the project of reaffirming his position as the rightful heir to Barry Goldwater's politics as well as his Senate seat. Last month, for example, McCain voted to extend the very tax cuts that he had once voted against, a move that tax-cut strategist Larry Hunter correctly described to The Washington Times as 'a further morphing of McCain into George W. Bush.' "So, with this homecoming, we bring to an end one of the most fascinating eras in American politics: the five years during which McCain, with the help of an adoring press, essentially defined and controlled the concept of 'bipartisanship.' . . .
"If there had been no McCain, perhaps there would be no campaign-finance law, no torture amendment, no progress toward action on climate change. So for all that, we should be modestly grateful. But I suspect that the Bushies signing on to McCain's campaign understand exactly how helpful his monopoly on bipartisanship has been to their sustained control, and are grateful in their own way." John Hawkins at Right Wing News reminds us that some ardent conservatives don't trust McCain either--and resent his media profile: There is no Republican up on Capitol Hill more disliked by his own GOP brethren than John McCain. That's why, despite the size of his fan club in the mainstream media, McCain seems rather unlikely to capture the party's nomination for President in 2008. "Here's a short, but sweet primer that may help explain why so many conservatives believe John McCain would be a very poor choice as the Republican nominee in 2008. "John McCain will be 72 years old in 2008, which will make him 3 years older than Ronald Reagan was when he became the oldest man to ever be inaugurated as president back in 1981. In the Senate, where doddering fossils like Strom Thurmond and Robert Byrd can be elected over and over, McCain looks like a spring chicken in comparison. But, Reagan's age turned out to be a campaign issue and McCain, who would be 80 years old at the end of his 2nd term, would certainly have a lot of people questioning --with good reason -- whether he's up to the job. Were McCain to be the nominee, his age could be the deciding factor that puts a Democrat in office. "The mainstream media loves John McCain and they regularly write fawning articles referring to him as a 'maverick' and a 'straight-talker.' Because of this, McCain polls well among Democrats and Independents. "However, the reason McCain is so well liked by the media is because they're liberals and they love it when he trashes other Republicans. But, what would happen if John McCain actually became the Republican nominee? The same members of the mainstream media who gush over him today would turn on him in a Minnesota minute and once his great press ended, his poll numbers with Independents and Democrats would start to drop precipitously." A major question, it seems to me, is whether less ideological columnists defend McCain against some of these attacks, or at least point out why he is so popular (and not just with the press). The president, meanwhile, is still selling his Iraq policy: "President Bush on Monday held out the northern Iraqi city of Tal Afar as an example of American success in the war," says the New York Times , "but he also acknowledged in remarks that were as grim as they were hopeful that the city's improvements were not matched in other parts of Iraq. . . .
"Over all, Mr. Bush's speech was a positive message that conceded some of the setbacks on the ground, a formulation meant to portray the president as not living in a fantasy world about the three-year-long war." Fred Barnes remains one of the most staunch Bush backers around, so if he's calling for a staff shakeup, as he does in the Wall Street Journal, it's rather telling: "It's time for President Bush to think about a third term. No, he doesn't need to overturn the Constitution. He can start the equivalent of his third term now, by filling his presidential staff and cabinet with new faces--or old faces in new positions--and by concentrating on new or forgotten initiatives. The goal: rejuvenation of his presidency by shocking the media and political community with a sweeping overhaul of his administration. The impact would be enormous because it's exactly what his foes have been demanding and exactly what he is not expected to do. And it would give him a chance to escape the political doldrums that may otherwise doom his presidency through its final 34 months. . . .
"A broad transformation, playing on the media's overreaction whenever surprised, would do more. Reporters would be forced to write stories about new officials, cover confirmation hearings, show up at press conferences they might have ignored, assess new policies, and--this is most important--take a fresh look at the president. It would be like the beginning of a new presidential term. Sure, the press and politicians would be cynical about Mr. Bush's bold moves, especially since he wouldn't be uprooting any policy or hiring Bush critics. In truth, there would be a large element of smoke and mirrors in his actions. The trade-off is that Mr. Bush might revitalize his presidency." Hey, a little smoke and mirrors never hurt anyone in politics. Kos is clearly disenchanted with Nancy Pelosi: "I think House Democrats in 2006 would be well served by casting about for a new leader, whether we win the House or not. And to think I was once a fan of Pelosi's. . . .
"These risk averse Dems think that by merely having a pulse, voters will gladly rush to them to save them from Republicans. But in reality, voters (including much of the Democratic base) are disillusioned. Why vote for Democrats who haven't shown an ounce of fight the last six years? What's the point? "The Alito filibuster was supposed to be a disaster for Democrats. Somehow, their numbers didn't suffer. Murtha was going to kill Dems by making them 'look weak on defense.' But somehow, people seem to agree with him. Now, Feingold's censure resolution is supposed to be a disaster for Democrats. Yet if that was the case, why are Republicans reacting so virulently against it? Bill Kristol admits the censure motion is hurting Bush." Roger L. Simon says Pajamas Media may deserve credit for the administration's decision to release a batch of Saddam Hussein documents. In the wake of the Duke Cunningham bribery scandal, involving the defense contractor MZM, the San Diego Union-Tribune has this eye-opening piece on California Rep. John Doolittle, who is among the lawmakers who have "admitted assisting either [MZM's] Mitchell Wade or Brent Wilkes, co-conspirators in the Cunningham case, at a time when the two businessmen were giving them tens of thousands of dollars in political contributions. "And at least one of the lawmakers, Doolittle, received a direct monetary benefit from those contributions through commissions paid to his wife, Julie. "Acting as her husband's campaign consultant, Julie Doolittle charged his campaign and his Superior California Political Action Committee a 15 percent commission on any contribution she helped bring in." His wife gets a commission ? How can that be kosher? Back-from-Iraq Post reporter Jackie Spinner is not that happy with management, according to the San Jose Mercury News: "I have to say, I don't think my editors at the paper have been as supportive of me coming home as I would like them to be. My fellow reporters have always been supportive. " Why haven't your editors been supportive ? "Because they don't know how to deal with somebody like me. They don't know how to deal with a reporter who has spent as much time as I've spent in a war zone. This war is unlike any we've known. " How have you changed ? "I'm jumpy. I'm angry. I'm unpredictable. I'm depressed. I have very serious post-traumatic stress disorder, which is common among people who spend 13 months in a war zone like Iraq. But unlike other reporters, I'm honest about it. A lot of journalists come back from that environment and want to seem tough, but inside they're not tough. This is not a profession that forgives people for breaking down, not that I'm breaking down." Vaughn Ververs of Public Eye, writing before Arianna's apology, is amazed that more bloggers didn't trash the Huffington Post for stitching together a couple of George Clooney interviews and passing that off as a blog posting: "If you replaced the words 'Huffington Report' with 'The New York Times' or any other MSM organization in context of the George Clooney flap of the last couple days, Arianna Huffington would be leading the charge to skewer and denounce that entity. Instead she, and the vocal bloggers always scouring news reports for the smallest mistake, have said, well, hardly anything. "What are we to take from this episode -- that bloggers operate under a separate set of rules than what they hold the MSM to? If CBS News had quoted someone by name and that person had later claimed it to be a false representation, we would have been scrambling to find out what exactly happened and would get no quarter from the bloggers until we did (that's basically what Clooney has said about a post that appeared under his name on Arianna's blog). Just a couple months ago, The Washington Post ombudsman made a factual mistake in a column which resulted in a huge controversy -- complete with cries of censorship, bias and hate speech." Several bloggers, including Eugene Volokh , have ripped this LAT op-ed by Erin Aubry Kaplan, who attempts to explain why ex-White House aide Claude Allen was allegedly ripping off Target: "Here is a man who, like most black conservatives, has had to do an awful lot of personal and political rationalizing to pay dues, which included apprenticing with then-North Carolina senator and habitual racist Jesse Helms and opposing the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday. . . .
"Loyalty has been the price of admission to this administration, and black conservatives have proved to be more loyal than most. That has unfortunately, but not always unfairly, invited comparisons to slave times, when the most loyal blacks were those who worked in closest proximity to their white masters -- house Negroes, as they were derisively known. . . . It's hard to imagine that such compromises and cognitive dissonance don't exact a psychological toll at some point, and Allen's alleged dabbling in crime might have been that point for him." This is not just psychobabble--how on earth does Kaplan know?--but babble that relies on racially charged stereotypes. Hey, can this be true? The airlines lost 30 million bags last year? Jeff Jarvis marvels once again at how the media take care of their own: "Retired WABC anchor Bill Beutel just died and the station is going overboard with coverage: Huge chunks of all its shows yesterday and again today are devoted to tributes. I'm sorry he's gone, but heads of state don't get this treatment. Then again, I always said that the only true fringe benefit of working on newspapers is that they'll run your obit. Now I have to wonder who'll die first: me or the papers that would carry my obit." I'll blog your obit if necessary, Jeff.
By Howard Kurtz