I have a version of Chait's idea above. I don't think it's quite right to say McCain's "great cause is himself." Of course I'm speculating! I think that McCain gets up every morning and says to himself: "I must be the next President of the United States." And of course his oversized opinion of himself plays a big role in that. But he also is utterly convinced that at this moment, with the war in Iraq threatened by appeasers, and the international situation in such a state of flux -- that it is absolutely crucial that he and no one else be the next President. Now, I know that every presidential candidate thinks something like this. But for McCain it is a Moby Dick, Ishmael kind of obsession. His willingness to play fast and loose with the truth, and to threaten us all by selecting Governor Palin, is justified thusly: "Anything is worth doing if it means I walk into the White House as President. The good I will do as President, the mistakes I will keep the nation from committing, far outweighs the venal sins from the campaign."

This is exactly why I don't buy into Obama's "bi-partisan" fantasy. These are not honorable people.

This is exactly how the USA gets into trouble over and over again--and especially the Republican Party, and especially--John McCain.

And you can see this pattern at work in 'The Quiet American'--with Alden Pyle.

It starts like this. I am good. I am the good guy. Everything I like and want is good and true. Anybody who disagrees with me is bad. Anyone who interferes with what I like and what I want is bad. Therefore, anything I must do to protect what I want is good. And anything my critics do to interfere with me is bad.

The problem with this line of reasoning, of course, is that it's upside down. We aren't 'good' because we think we are. We are good because the fruits of our behavior tastes good to others. The consequences of our behavior is apples and figs, not thorns and thistles.

So instead of realizing--when I sow thorns and thistles I am bad--and anyone who tries to prevent me is good--it gets turned inside out.

And Oila! You have Alden Pyle. Or John McCain. Or Bush. Or Cheney. Or any other those other deeply confused Republicans.

You don't do good because you wear the white hat. You wear the white had because you do good.

If someone is virtuous, they are also humble, and thus would never tout their own virtue.

First off, Chait is the same guy who wrote that ABSOLUTELY key article, a cover story of THE NEW REPUBLIC in October when it was too late, devastating the flipflop spin (whose bogusness was just about as obvious five months earlier). I would note that, eg, the 'We're for Kerry but we have to justify the lying' NEW YORK TIMES never even, AFTER Chait's belated piece, even ran so much as an oped arguing the points that Chait made.

(Chait's attempt to palm off the MSM -- AND progressive media AND progressive organizations' like progressive-leaning 527s, not to mention the miserable Kerry campaign -- being silent on this issue for five months as it hardened into national cliche as being due merely to media 'herd mentality' is as flimsy as the flipflop spin itself).

What I wonder in this election is, is the fix in the way it was (AND OF COURSE NO ONE DARE ADMIT IT) in 04 w/the media, in 08?

True, this year is a MUCH tougher sell. But note two egregious examples, about which I will be writing at more length in upcoming days and weeks:

First, in Palin's maiden national mass appearance at the RNC, she was totally vulnerable on two issues, especially the so-called "bridge to nowhere" and her anti-pork crusading masquerade.
True, the MSM did note, relatively quietly and belatedly in most instances, that she had been an ardent supporter of the boondoggle, even in the 2006 election when arguably the issue was already dead nationally. But what NO ONE mentioned at the time, and the NY TIMES has mentioned (several times in more RECENT weeks, generally
nonprominently although in passing in one recent editorial) is the THEN nationally publicized sweetheart deal in which Alaska got ALL the "thanx but no thanx" money, with GREATER FREEDOM ON HOW TO SPEND IT THAN EVER. Indeed, Palin's huge tax rebate to Alaskans (though made possible by the state government being awash in oil and gas money) was financed by a significant degree out of this sweetheart deal's monies, if indirectly and over time. If the media had made this obvious point DURING the Repuke convention, especially on national major network TV, it would clearly have been devastating to the McPainlin ticket, and of course therefore failing to justify the lying.

Also ignored was the less brazen issue about Wasilla, which is (according to Wikipedia) centered around huge shopping malls along a highway, and a suburb of Anchorage, where a full THIRTY FIVE PERCENT (!) of its workforce works. (That's without the 'crystal meth capital of Alaska' stuff thrown in). "Small town America"? Mayberry it ain't -- sounds more like Nassau County Long Island.

Now comes the BLOCKBUSTER story, (blockbuster precisely in the context of the financial meltdown) about Rick Davis and his company. It wasn't even on the FRONT PAGE of the NEW YORK TIMES!!!! What about the WASHINGTON POST and THE PHILADELPHIA ENQUIRER, etc? I'd be interested if someone well able got a look at MSM newspaper front pages as well as some way of gauging TV coverage prominence of this story as well.

This story it seems to me should be dominating the election news CYCLES from the day it came out (late Sunday), until the first debate (Fri). But no, it's "just another story"

As a cap I presented as a gift to Abbie's son Andrew Hoffman said: "Liberal Media MY ASS!"

In order to lie as he and Palin do, McCain's opinion of his base must be horrid. Here's a question:

Could a Democrat lie like McCain and expect to get from the Democratic base the high fives McCain gets from the Republican base?