Straight Talk about "Straight Talk"
Congratulations to the LAT's Matt Welch for this morning's penetrating column on John McCain. No, it's not exactly pioneering to write about the ever camera-ready Arizonan now saddling up to gallop in from the West to rescue the rotten hulk of the Republican Party. But Welch has the audacity to write about...McCain's views! Imagine, the Senator has notions about the country! He's not just a straight shooter with an adorable face!
Welch writes rightly:
You can read 1,000 profiles of GOP presidential front-runner John McCain without encountering a single paragraph examining his core ideological philosophy....
It flies in the face of mainstream horse-race and handicapping stories, but McCain is not just a rugged man in a white bus. He's carrying baggage.
Sifting through McCain's four bestselling books and nearly three decades of work on Capitol Hill, a distinct approach toward governance begins to emerge. And it's one that the electorate ought to be particularly worried about right now. McCain, it turns out, wants to restore your faith in the U.S. government by any means necessary, even if that requires thousands of more military deaths, national service for civilians and federal micromanaging of innumerable private transactions. He'll kick down the doors of boardroom and bedroom, mixing Democrats' nanny-state regulations with the GOP's red-meat paternalism in a dangerous brew of government activism.
Now, as it happens, I disagree with Welch about national service for civilians. You don't have to be a Teddy Roosevelt fan, a national greatness blowhard, or a fascist-in-training to think that patriotism requires some general paying of dues--and, moreover, that national service could, if properly done, check and balance the grandiose plans of the next Decider-in-Chief. You can disagree, as I do, with the parts of the next graf about Darfur and Rwanda, and still appreciate that Welch is performing his own national service here:
McCain is more inclined to start wars and increase troop levels than George W. Bush or Bill Clinton. He has supported every U.S. military intervention of the last two decades, urged both presidents to rattle their sabers louder over North Korea and Iran, lamented the Pentagon's failure to intervene in Darfur and Rwanda and supported a general policy of "rogue state rollback." He's a fan of Roosevelt's Monroe-Doctrine-on-steroids stick-wielding in Latin America. And — like Bush — he thinks too much multilateralism can screw up a perfectly good war.
During the 1980 campaign, Ronnie Dugger was the only reporter in the country to take note of Ronald Reagan's hundreds of newspaper columns and radio broadcasts. He did so, of course, not in the NYT or the WP but The Nation. Not a single daily reporter in the United States indulged in a similar exercise. Instead, during the hundreds of days of the campaign, the teeming masses of boys and girls on all the buses and planes ran panting around the country for scraps of remarks that the genial ex-governor deigned to grant them.
Listen up, pundits. Matt Welch has sent you a signal. It won't kill you to look into the mind of the desert angel and see what he thinks.
Listen up, pundits. Matt Welch has sent you a signal. It won't kill you to look into the mind of the desert angel and see what he thinks.
Icons don't think. They just are. The punditry's job is to tell you what the icons think, or what the punditry thinks you want the icons to be thinking. Going back and looking at what an icon actually believes and has said/done -- and McCain is our greatest icon right now -- will screw up 7 years of of an image our media folks have been carefully crafting, and flush all that hard work down the drain. Worse, it would make the pundits look like the hacks they are. Fugeddaboutit. Ain't going to happen. About the best anyone can expect going forward is that the punditry will begin dealing with McCain in a more honest fashion, and walk away from all the "straight talk" bullshit as if it never happened. They might be willing to report more honestly about McCain, but they will not revisit the past several years of McCain worship, because to do so would reflect negatively on them -- it would tell people more about the state of our media than it would tell them about McCain.
November 26, 2006 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
But unlike someone like, say, John Kerry, Americans will honor and appreciate McCain's military service and give more credence to his ideas on foreign policy.
One problem the Democrats will have in 2008 is the "talking head" conundrum. They have very few candidates who rightly deserve to be Commander in Chief. Given that George W. Bush was elected to the White House with no military experience, it is highly unlikely that the 2008 winner will similarly have no military experience (sorry Barak and Hillary).
John Kerry, one of the few Democrats who has actually served, was rebuked in 2004 and most likely blew his 2008 chances with his "botched" Iraq joke earlier this month.
November 26, 2006 10:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am afraid the LA Times pundit is a tiny minority. Washington Media Elite have decided they want McCain president. If they had their way we would cancel the primaries and the 2008 general election and declare McCain president for life.
His views on various issues are meaningless to them. They have convinced themselves he is Jefferson, FDR, JFK all rolled into one. Who cares where he stands on health care? Turn on any gasbag show on TV and you will see panelists gushing over him, spinning on his behalf like PR flacks.
If McCain wins the GOP nomination he will be unbeatable. His MSM groupies will make sure he wins.
November 26, 2006 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
"will screw up 7 years of of an image our media folks have been carefully crafting, and flush all that hard work down the drain. Worse, it would make the pundits look like the hacks they are."
I agree.
The Washington Media Elite are personality invested in the McCain narrative. They created it.
And one thing we have learned about the DC Media Elite is that once they are invested in a narrative they are extremely reluctant to change it. Thus, even now they can't use the "L" word in connection with Bush. During the 2000 election they portrayed Gore as a pathological liar and Bush as "the straight talking Texan". So even when Bush admits he lied, as he did in the case of Rummy's firing, they still make excuses for him and resist calling him a liar.
So McCain can lie, flip flop, lose his temper. DC Media Elite will continue portraying him as "straight talker, voice of reason, a man of integrity".
November 26, 2006 11:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain may have missed his moment.
Did the right wing pundits win the 2006 election? Nope, it was those urban/suburban Yankee soccer and science moms back again.
You think the public really wants 8 more years of people burned alive in Baghdad? You really think this draft talk plays in Peoria? And what lunatic in the Democratic Party thinks that women sacrifice for 18 years guiding their kids from one safe haven to another only to have Big Daddy Government try to coerce them into "universal service"?
McCain isn't the answer and neither is Hillary the Hawk.
November 26, 2006 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
Undoubtedly, Americans will elect the individual who can game the system most effectively. McCain is as adept at this as anyone.
November 26, 2006 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
in point of fact, I think someone went through the records of the current Congress, and more Democrats than Republicans had actually served.
November 26, 2006 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
There is no doubt that McCain has sold his soul and his image in trying to getting the Republican nomination. However at the Abizaid hearings only McCain and Hillary not only didn't praise Abizaids honesty before he said anything but also grasped the fundamental contradictions of his testimony. They also come closer to understanding that Americans hate losing and hate wasting their efforts for foreigners.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 26, 2006 1:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Where does all this cynical pessimism come from?
Two years ago, Bush was re-elected with approval points in the mid 50's -- today his party is walking away from him, lost an election, and the approval points are in the low 30's. All this happened without all that much help from the MSM and the Beltway Pundit Corps.
With some thoughtful effort, the same or a similar change could impact McCain.
November 26, 2006 1:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
I don't believe we've heard one word from McCain yet on just where he's going to GET this swarm of additional troops he swears we need in Iraq. The draft? Not a peep yet from Mr. Straight Talk on that one. I myself am convinced we WILL need a draft for the overall global War Against Megaterrorism -- particularly the nuclear variety -- but if we take that step, we will have much more important things to use that draft for than pouring the draftees down the rathole of Iraq.
McCain and Giuliani are both extremely vulnerable on this point, and I think that either Edwards or Obama (though not Hillary, who remains utterly incoherent in her Iraq policy) could flay them alive on it. (Of course, if we're completely out of Iraq anyway by the time the 2008 campaign cranks up, it will be a different matter.)
November 26, 2006 2:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
The fact that a two-faced, flip-floppin' snake like McCain is still a significant figure on the political landscape confirms my belief that the media (and perhaps Americans in general) are a hell of a lot more interested in myth than reality. For some odd reason most pundits continue to give him a free pass on his actual record, and have fallen whole hog for the independent 'maverick' schtick.
Is it 2008 yet?
November 26, 2006 3:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
That may be true of the Congress, but I was referring to the 2008 presidential election and the current candidate pool.
November 26, 2006 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wars tend produce three types of veterans. The first type feels bitter and betrayed and wants to spend the rest of his civilian life refighting the last cause, either because he lost or because he didn't think he won enough -- it doesn't really matter which. The second type just wants to forget the whole thing, good or bad, and get on with the normal life of home, family, work, community, et cetera. The third type wants to know why it all happened and devotes the rest of his life to finding an explanation in the hope that such an understanding might help him prevent another such tragedy from ever happening again.
John McCain belongs to the first type. I belong to the third type. John Kerry once belonged to the third type, but then he became one of the second type before considering that the job of President might require him to become one of the first type. McCain believes the wrong things for the wrong reasons. I believe the right things for the right reasons. Kerry doesn't know what to believe.
We veterans have our counterparts in the larger civilian population. By far the largest cohort, or Type 2 Ambivalents, never fought in any wars and would prefer to leave the entire subject of armed national belligerence up to someone else: by default, the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists who think of nothing except war but who prefer to leave the actual fighting to someone lower down the socio-economic totem pole. The Type 3 Pacifists don't want anyone to fight in any wars, but their attempts to prevent the ones they clearly see coming usually fail. The Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists usually succeed in starting at least one war in every generation. The Type 2 Ambivalents passively allow this to happen without ever becoming aware -- of anything. The Type 3 Pacifists, although they rarely stop wars from starting, do occasionally help bring them to a somewhat earlier conclusion. Naturally, this good deed (or "Syndrome") never goes unpunished by the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists while the Type 2 Amibivalents, a.k.a., "The Nation of Sheep," a.k.a., "The Fate-Driven Herd," disinterestedly await their next fleecing.
The Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists like Sheriff Dick Cheney and Deputy Dubya Bush have had a good run, thanks to much help from the first type of veteran like John McCain, John Warner, and John Murtha. They enjoyed the usual amount of zero opposition (i.e., hapless acquiescence) from the second type of veteran like John Kerry, Chuck Hagel, and others of that disappearing ilk. Interestingly, John Murtha now seems to have become almost a third type of veteran in that he would like to stop (or at least diminish) the present unnecessary war because it now (as opposed to previously) seems too damaging to the prospects of keeping the army beefed up on pork and so ready for the next needless conflict.
The purging from the national memory of the third type of Vietnam Veteran -- me -- by the first type of Vietnam Veteran -- McCain -- allowed the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists -- Cheney and Bush -- to do their thing yet again only worse than almost ever before in American history. Now we see once again the newly survived veterans of another needless disaster (those who have managed to make it home) falling out into their predictable categories: with the professional officer corps -- generally if not genetically the first type of veteran -- lining up with the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists for another grab at the "long war" brass ring before the merry-go-round breaks down and they lose their last career opportunity forever.
I, of course, identify with and salute the (third veteran type) Iraq War Veterans Against the War; although a new "syndrome" appears already in the making to discredit them. Unfortunately, the (first veteran type) Iraq War Veterans For the War (only somehow done better) will probably join with enough of the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists and their captive Type 2 Ambivalents to make the aging and blustering John McCain only a pale shadow of his future -- and possibly far more dangerous -- incarnation. I mean, who could have thought after Vietnam that America would get both George W. Bush AND John McCain: two know-nothing-and-care-less relics of the self-satisfied Baby Boomer generation -- the worst of both civilian and ex-military components of that dreadfully dumb demographic.
I don't know who except the Iraqis "lost" Iraq, but I do know that America has lost itself -- again. With nothing much in the way of judgment or competence shaping up as the usual take-it-or-take-it Hobson's "choice" in a couple of years, I can only hope that (the first veteran type) "More Bombs and More Troops" John McCain never achieves his pathetic grasping after the commander-in-brief's silly little Napoleonic baton. Neither do I wish to see the Type 2 Ambivalent You-Know-Her ascend to "the top of the greasy pole" (as Disraeli called the summit of political office) because then the Type 1 Orwellian Nationalists and first type of embittered veteran will combine to bully her inexperienced self into bombing Sudanese pharmaceutical plants or the Chinese embassy in Belgrade again -- just like they did her Type 2 Ambivalent husband.
Actually, I think I've just analyzed myself right into a conviction that unless the third type of veteran and Type 3 Pacifists somehow get the better of the argument (an event rare in human history), that America might sink even lower into the Warfare Welfare and Makework Militarism that have now almost ruined the country beyond hope of recovery. Only immediately doing what we did in the mid-nineteen-seventies can save us from our own schizoid-on-steroids, Lunatic Leviathan government: (1) cut off the money for occupying Iraq, (2) revoke the "Authorization" for occupying Iraq, and (3) punish the perpetrators for occupying Iraq. Screw McCain and You-Know-Her. They haven't got a single useful idea between them.
November 26, 2006 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well we just had an election where suburban women and a few other folks just said that they don't give a f*** what the media elite thinks.
It was 2 or 4 or 6 years late for alot of us but it happened; media follows, it does not lead.
November 26, 2006 5:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, I sure hope the public will see through "national service" but I remember very well the biggest promoter of national service ever, Bill Clinton, running for president in 1992 and telling audiences how it would be a way to pay for college with "a year or 2" of uplifting, rewarding service. The result was Americorps, which if its still around is nothing like what Bill Clinton seemed to be promising. Its a small program hardly worth telling the voters about and surely not something that should have been promoted as a way to finance college for their kids.
Universal national service would be hugely expensive. What are they going to do? You have to create new jobs because you can't lay off federal workers and give the existing jobs to young people doing their national service. It would require a huge bureaucracy to run, including a lot of people just to think up jobs.
I don't get the point of universal national service at all and if there was a point, how can anyone justify enforcing it on only people of below a certain age while the rest of us go about our lives?
I suspect its really just a devious way to increase the size of the military.
November 26, 2006 6:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
"All this happened without all that much help from the MSM and the Beltway Pundit Corps."
I completely disagree.
Without the MSM gushing over the "straight talking Texan" who restored "honesty and integrity" to the WH the American public would have waken up a lot sooner. It took 6 years for the public to start questioning Bush's honesty and integrity as well as judgment. In 6 years he was able to do a lot of damage.
We can expect the same scenario with McCain. Yes, the public will eventually figure out what his agenda is but until that time (6 years?) he can get elected and re-elected and impose a radical right wing agenda.
November 26, 2006 6:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly what war(s) did President Clinton "start?"
Not a good sign...
November 26, 2006 6:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow. Excellent post, Murry. Better, I think, than the post and the column it responded to (both of which were good too).
November 26, 2006 6:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am more sanguine about 2008 - this is a very different world than 1980 was in spite of the MSM's current love affair with McCain. Not only is he going to have to be more accountable for his record than he was in '00, the guy is running the risk of overexposure - talk too much on TV and you might find people begin to grow tired of you, and start looking for reasons to dislike you...and the media always enjoys the backlash angle ('He was once considered by many to be a straight shooter, but has the luster worn off John McCain's rifle?'). This end-run-to-the-far-right that he's doing can't be ignored by the MSM forever, and if there's one thing that Kerry proved it's that the 'people' don't like to feel like they're being manipulated through calculated gambits and focus group politics. McCain's going to have to do more than toss around disembodied soundbites on Sunday talk shows to win primaries and a gen election.
The idea that McCain's military service will be 'honored where Kerry's wasn't'.... I'm just not buying it. McCain was the subject of a concerted slime effort in the 2000 primaries -in the face of his sterling war record. What makes you think the 6,7 or more GOP challengers (all with McCain in their gunsites) will pull their punches in 08 if they didn't in 00?
Veteran-bashing is no longer taboo in
American politics - and we have Rove&co to thank for it. The very idea that Kerry's combat time was somehow dishonorable compared Bush's father hiding him in the Texas Guard is the perfect illustration of how insanely up-is-down the discourse became...and likely will be in 2008.
If we learned anything from 04, it's that McCain's time in an F4 and in Hanoi isn't going to innoculate him from personal attacks, and in fact that time maybe the SUBJECT of the attacks.
As somebody else said - McCain's time is past - he missed his chance. He should have run in 96, challenged in 2004, or even cut a deal with Kerry.
Because it's just possible that the reason McCain lost in 2000 WASN"T the dirty tricks or Bush's supposed momentum after South Carolina. Maybe the real reason that he lost is because he didn't stand up well to the campaign microscope. And in spite of his POW grit and medals - his demeanor, his record as a Senator, his oratorical abilities were simply not all as appealing to a broad swath of Americans as he and the MSM would have us all believe. And when you add in the caliber of candidate he lost to, It occurs to me that there's a damn good chance that the McCain myth gets exposed very early in the 08 cycle...think Howard Dean.
November 26, 2006 7:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Talk is cheap, and straight talk is cheaper but McCain engages in pettifoggery. You can examine 1000 profiles of McCain and not discover his core ideological philosophy because he has none. As another comment points out, McCain is willing to say anything anytime particularly on the issue of more troops in Iraq. Nothing is so easy as to be wise after the event.
When Lord Coker stated in Twyne's Case in 1602 that fraud and deceit abound in these days more than in former times, he could not begin to imagine the Republican way of life today. McCain has learned his lessons from Bush well but he's a poor, depraved and immoral imitation since Bush had his way with him in 2000 and McCain just laid back and let him.
November 26, 2006 8:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
Because it's just possible that the reason McCain lost in 2000 WASN"T the dirty tricks or Bush's supposed momentum after South Carolina. Maybe the real reason that he lost is because he didn't stand up well to the campaign microscope. And in spite of his POW grit and medals - his demeanor, his record as a Senator, his oratorical abilities were simply not all as appealing to a broad swath of Americans as he and the MSM would have us all believe. And when you add in the caliber of candidate he lost to, It occurs to me that there's a damn good chance that the McCain myth gets exposed very early in the 08 cycle...think Howard Dean.
The idea is that if the media continue to behave towards McCain the way they have, he won't need to be very appealing because they'll do the work for him. I doubt this will happen, but then again, almost every week I hear yet another story about what a boring, unlikeable nut Al Gore is, and that stuff was created 7 years ago by the same people who use the term "Maverick, straight shooting John McCain" at every opportunity.
As an aside, you would think that the pundits -- the wise, all-knowing pundits -- would have made some comments about what's happened to the Republican Party, if not the nation, when guys like Chuck Hagel and John McCain are touted as "moderates," but not a peep. Apparently talking a little sense now and then makes you a "moderate" or a "maverick"? It was an implied criticism of modern Republicanism I never saw discussed.
November 26, 2006 8:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why McCain Is Likely To Win, No Matter What He Says!
http://www.corporations.org/media/
The media is controlled by 6 corporate titans. McCain doesn't have to convince anybody but the CEOs of those six companies and he controls the media. Period. They love McCain, just like they love Lieberman. Thus, McCain is a "straight-talking war-hero" no matter what he says or does. And whoever the Democrats run against him is a dangerously weak "librul, librul, librul" no matter what they say or do.
That's not going to change.
The reporters of the MSM all are soviet-style apparachiks. They are hacks and corporate whores. They have to be to get their jobs in the first place. So, why do you expect from honesty from them about anything? We've just seen another election where corporate media lies went unchallenged once again.
Do you think it's an accident that they fired Dan Rather and side-stepped Bob Schieffer to make Katie Couric the anchor of CBS Evenihng News?
Just watching the conventional wisdom appearing like magic on all the local talk-shows shows how utterly hopeless and biased they are. That's LOCAL talk shows, not the Sunday morning follies like "Meet the Press."
It's infiltrated down to the local media, newspapers, TV, radio. They control everything the average American sees or hears.
Except for the small minority who get their news via the internet from foreign news sources and a few people who watch BBC world news on PBS it's a total blanket of B.S.
And in America, that's proven to be enough to win.
November 26, 2006 8:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
A recent example of MSM pro McCain bias; Murtha candidacy for Majority Leader. Murtha was involved in the ABSCAM scandal. He was investigated by the FBI. Never charged. Investigated by the Ethics Committee and cleared unanimously. And yet MSM made a big deal of his past and declared him tainted, including editorials and op-eds in the WP declaring him unfit.
Compare that to how they treat McCain's involvement in Keating 5. It is ignored and if mentioned at all they dismiss it as "it was a long time ago".
A clear double standard.
Same goes for questions about McCain's personal life and 1st marriage. It is dismissed as "a long time ago".
I doubt WP Media Elite would be so kind and gentle towards another candidate.
November 26, 2006 10:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Very excellent analysis and comments Michael. One of the best I've ever read on any blog.
November 27, 2006 3:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
I not sure what people mean by not knowing what is McCain's core philosophy. It seems that he has been quite clear about it especially when it was suggested he become a Demcrat to run for president or run as Kerry's Vice-Presidential candidate. McCain is a pretty traditional conservative with certain libertarian elements.
What distinguishes him from most Republicans is his willingness, on occaision to criticize Republicans, and to work with Democrats as he has done with Feingold, Lieberman and Kennedy.
The issues is this. People at the TPMCafe sorch politicians of all persuassion for not being honest. Americans since the founding of the country have felt politicians lie. McCain is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as speaking his mind. His ideology matters to a microscopic number of people. Whether he can maintain his image will be the keep to is campaign.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 27, 2006 6:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
Now, as it happens, I disagree with Welch about national service for civilians. You don't have to be a Teddy Roosevelt fan, a national greatness blowhard, or a fascist-in-training to think that patriotism requires some general paying of dues....
This is patently absurd. Paying taxes is "paying of dues." Aside from the fact that there is no apparent constitutional provision whereby Congress has the power to mandate "national service" outside of the military, I'll merely point out that those engaged in "national service" outside of the military would displace workers who would not have been conscripted into "national service."
Do you really want workers in the free market to compete against conscripts?
November 27, 2006 7:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
McCain will be the nominee. It doesnt matter what his core philosophy is because you will have the likes of Chris Matthews, Tim Russert and others slobbering all over him. It is the personal story that counts for these guys, not the political views or agenda. The MSM just loves this guy and anyone who seems the least bit 'tough'. The MSM needs a daddy and McCain will fit the bill. I think the only thing that will keep McCain out will be his age and health. Memories of an aging Reagan will work against him.
November 27, 2006 7:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't think either Dem primary voters or general election voters will be looking for someone with military credentials this time around. It would be nice, but it's certainly not necessary. In hindsight, it obviously didn't do John Kerry that much good in 2004.
The media will always say it's a big advantage, but as usual, they don't have any special insight into what actual voters want (and voters often say they want things that they dismiss when it comes time to actually vote).
November 27, 2006 8:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
Perhaps, but McCain now wants to double down, which would be a huge losing bet.
November 27, 2006 8:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
Why don't the dems start a 527 group to expose the truth about McCain and his views? Seems to work for the GOP.
I'm sure they've already set up 2 or 3 for Hillary alone, just in case.
November 27, 2006 8:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
I am not so very concerned about John McCain winning the nomination. Even if he did, I do not think he would do well campaigning.
The fact that the media are in love with him is irrelevant. They loved Howard Dean too in 2003, and look how well he fared with the caucus goers. Where Dean simply was not well known by the caucus goers, McCain is, and he's not well liked. So he faces an uphill battle.
Even so as a candidate, I think he would represent the side of the GOP that the public is tired of... the Activist neoCon side. Doubling down in Iraq? Didn't we try that in Vietnam. Invading South America? Didn't we also try that in Vietnam? McCain seems to be a case study in not learning historical lessons.
As for the Democrats, I would like to see someone who is optimistic, and has a broad outlook and focus. Who can think through problems, and come up with solutions that are not necessarily Conventional Wisdom. That's going to be hard. I still think Wesley Clark may be that someone, especially if we are still engaged in war. But we need diplomacy as well as domestic focus. We need someone who understands the 21st century, and does not focus on 40 year old political battles.
Again, I still think Clark may be it. But I'm waiting to see the full array of candidates.
November 27, 2006 8:25 AM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, one lesson for Democrats from all of this.
It's not about policies.
It's about personality.
This is why people like John Kerry, Michael Dukakis and such lose. Even though americans agree with them on policies, they can't articulate it.
November 27, 2006 8:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that criticism of the MSM is overblown. I agree that it's not a good or ideal situation, but I disagree that they dictate what their reporters say and do. I think the criticism of the MSM as lazy and following a herd mentality with their conventional wisdom is more convincing.
November 27, 2006 8:47 AM | Reply | Permalink
There's no reason why the elected representatives of the American people couldn't decide that the American civic duty should be expanded a bit beyond draft-or-no-draft plus paying taxes. A summer or year of national service after high school is not a big deal. They would probably be as likely to replace other volunteers as to replace full-time workers.
Many other countries have mandatory military service with other options for conscientious objectors. National service would fulfill a similar societal function here.
November 27, 2006 9:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
Re: McCain
Strong and Wrong. That's McCain's clear position in a nutshell.
As I've said elsewhere, it's important to point out not just that McCain is wrong on Iraq, BUT THAT HE KNOWS HE IS WRONG. Thus, McCain is perpetrating a huge fraud on the American people in the name of personal political advancement. He knows more troops won't do a damn thing now, but he's still calling for them, despite agreeing that it's not a serious option a year ago.
His whole routine is fairly transparent at this point. To call for more troops NOW is either delusional or else serving another purpose (i.e. positioning oneself as the most hawkish Republican on Iraq, same strategy as to blindly ally oneself with Bush on Iraq).
I hope the MSM catches on someday soon, although I think the number of GOP primary voters still hawkish on Iraq in 2008 may be pretty far diminished and put McCain on the wrong side of the debate by then anyway.
His version of strong and wrong will eventually, if it hasn't already, disintegrate into strong and obviously stupid.
Re: Clark
He stumbled pretty badly out of the gate last time around, and it will be interesting to see if he can overcome that this time out. He will have to convince his previous supporters and donors, who may be more open to someone without a military background this time around, given how things went with Kerry. Many will simply be interested in someone new, given how many familiar faces there are already going to be in the primary.
November 27, 2006 9:20 AM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
November 27, 2006 9:21 AM | Reply | Permalink
I don't recall feeling the love for Howard Dean. There was some love for Trippi, but my sense of the media meme was a "what do they see in him" curiosity, as though they were examining a strange cult.
I recall several articles mentioning how strange the left liked Dean since he was a centrist, moderate, even conservative Democrat, implying that those of us who liked Dean drank the kool-aid.
It was the media's biased coverage of both the 2000 and 2004 elections that tipped the elections to Bush in 04 and made 00 stealable. And it was the press that made Bush v Gore be perceived as Gore v. Bush.
As for the media love-fest for McCain. Look at how Jon Stewart, a normally savvy news consumer, has also fallen for the straight talk spin. His "We love you" interviews with McCain make me cringe because he obviously only knows the surface spin on McCain and has not a clue what McCain believes about anything.
November 27, 2006 10:01 AM | Reply | Permalink
I was not arguing that his policy prescription was corect only that he came across as not cowed by Abizaid.
His answer would have been the right one in 2003 not now.
Daniel A. Greenbaum
November 27, 2006 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
American Prospect sums up the MSM narrative about McCain;
http://www.prospect.org/horsesmouth/
* McCain is a sincere straight talker.
* Don't believe anything McCain says, he doesn't really mean it.
With the above narrative McCain can't lose. MSM has given him immunity from criticism. They are saying his views or votes are irrelevant. He is so cool he is above policy.
November 27, 2006 1:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why does America's "civic duty" only apply to 18 year old kids? Boy does this take me back to the wrath of my generation at being conscripted into a war we didn't even get to vote against. Why are we blaming our children? We're the generation that's screwed up.
November 27, 2006 5:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I had been led to believe that the federal government was a government of limited powers--that is, the powers that are delegated to it by Article I, Section 8 of the US constitution. I've read the US constitution--maybe you should, too--and have yet to see a provision there that suggests that the Congress has the power to enact any legislation whatsoever, merly because the "elected representatives of the American people...decide that [something is] the American civic duty."
Maybe you might want to enlighten us.
Regarding
Many other countries have mandatory military service with other options for conscientious objectors. National service would fulfill a similar societal function here.
That's nice. Amend the constitution (Article V provides for amendments) to grant the federal government the power to do so.
November 28, 2006 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink