I like John McCain.  Most voters like John McCain.  The press likes John McCain.  John McCain's likability is about the only thing he has going for him in his campaign for president.  Well . . . that and a supplicant media.

Everyone involved in a campaign or supporting a particular candidate usually believes that their candidate receives unfair coverage by the media.  This happens in one of two fashions: either we believe the media is too tough on our guy/gal; or, not tough enough on their opponent.  Regardless, we all work the refs.  It's a standard exercise in every campaign.

However, just because we all work the refs doesn't mean some of the pointed complaints are without merit. 

This is all a long wind-up to the media's maddening coverage of John McCain.  It's been written in many places that the supplicant media ostensibly runs around as stenographers regurgitating John McCain's fantasy 'Straight-Talk' narrative.

Here's how I see John McCain's 'Straight-Talk' shtick: as shtick.  It's a means that serves an end; being elected president.  The idea that John McCain is a 'Straight-Talk' 'maverick' is pure fantasy.  It's a construct created by John McCain to advance his political career. 

And, there's nothing wrong with that.  John McCain is a skilled politician.  And if he can dupe an unwitting media to push his preferred narrative, he'd be crazy not to.  But, it seems as if the media has almost reveled in finding anything that can be used to skewer Barack Obama as a 'typical politician'.  The media has gone out of its way to latch onto anything regarding Sen. Obama that allows them to portray him as, god forbid, a politician trying to win an election.

Fact is, all good politicians have a shtick.  Bill Clinton's was the lip-biting 'I feel-your-pain' empathy.  However, the press doesn't have to blindly push the candidate's shtick.  Hell, Clinton was repeatedly scorned as 'slick Willie' for his shtick.

John McCain's 'Straight-Talk' shtick is, in a sense, somewhat akin to a pick-up line.  Except that his shtick is that he doesn't really have a shtick.  It like the scene in the unbelievably outdated Cameron Crowe movie 'Singles'.  The lead male character [representing a politician in my example] is at a bar [representing the American electorate] and wants to talk to a girl that he sees [an American voter].  Here's how the scene plays out:

-Hey.
-Hello.

My friend and I have this argument, and here it is.

He says when you're at a place like this...you can't just be yourself,
you need an act.

So anyway, I saw you standing there...so I thought,
A: I could just leave you alone.
B: I could come up with an act, or
C: I could just be myself.

I chose C.  What do you think?

I think that A: You have an act... and that
B: Not having an act is your act.

John McCain's act is that he doesn't have an act.  That's an act!  I'll never understand how smart people in the media are either unwilling or unable to see this plain fact.

Sen. McCain provided another example of this in Michigan today.  Speaking of national emissions standards, McCain started out with his usual 'my friends, I'm going to have to give you a little straight-talk' preface before informing the audience that [with regards to whether or not states, such as California, should be able to set higher emissions standards]:

I have to say I guess at the end of the day I
support the states being able to do that, but I also think there's no
reason why we shouldn't be able to sit down and work this out."

McCain defended this position again at a press
conference after his town hall, but when asked specifically by a
reporter from the Detroit News about comments he had made last month in
support of a national emission standard that would overrule state
standards, he seemed confused.

"I'll get back to you on that," McCain said. "It's a complicated issue. I'll have my folks get to you."

Before I go on, just a general note to the media: whenever John McCain starts a sentence with 'my friends, I'm going to give you a little straight-talk'; whatever follows is sure to be a politically expedient pander.

John McCain has two stock responses when caught pandering.  The first is to become angry at the questioner for asking the question [i.e., McCain becoming 'visibly angry' when asked about how his experience as a POW qualified him for the presidency]; or second, to express bafflement and state that he will "have my folks get to you" [i.e., today in Michigan or when asked about Carly Fiorina giving voters the impression that Sen. McCain supported insurance coverage for birth control].

These are Sen. McCain's stock responses.  Every time McCain is confronted with his stated positions on issues [e.g., voting against insurance coverage for birth control & national emissions standards] while speaking to a group that he is trying to portray his position s something other then what it is; his response seems to be to feign confusion and defer [e.g., "I'll get back to you on that," McCain said. "It's a complicated issue. I'll have my folks get to you."] or to get angry at the questioner.

I would be able to tolerate this nonsense more if the blatant pandering wasn't couched in honorable terms.  For example, here's how Sen. McCain characterized his anger to the the POW question: 

McCain then collected himself and apologized for his initial reaction.

"I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk
about my experiences," he said, noting that he has huge admiration for
the "heroes" who served with him in the POW camp and said the
experience taught him to love the U.S. because he missed it so much.

"I am always reluctant to talk about these things," McCain said.

Sure you are, Senator.   We all know that you're the last honorable man in politics and would never exploit your former POW status for crass political purposes [ahem, Pittsburgh Steelers].

Again, all politicians pander to a degree, although with Sen. McCain there seems to be no subject with which he is above pandering about [again see, Pittsburgh Steelers POW story].  However, it's a little bit ridiculous to explicitly state that you are above pandering [i.e., 'giving you a little straight-talk'] right before pandering [i.e., 'I support the states being able to do that'] and then recoiling in disgust [or completely obfuscating] when called on the pandering by stating that you're too honorable to pander [i.e., "I kind of reacted the way I did because I have a reluctance to talk about my experiences"].

I'm not sure if the media is simply stupid or willfully ignorant.  Either way, that they allow this nonsense to continue is, frankly, jaw-dropping.