The Romance Ends

in your guts you know he's nuts

By streiff Posted in Comments (25) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »

We all knew it would happen.

The romance between the media and Senator John McCain was shallow and superficial as any relationship conceived in the wee morning hours and fueled by alcohol and dim lights tends to be.

So long as Senator McCain was dissing the Republican base, making life difficult for the administration, and giving great interview he was “maverick John McCain” and a hero to all. Now that McCain looks like he’s within a red-faced meltdown of the Republican nomination for president in 2008 all that is changing.

Richard Cohen writes:

Earlier this year a close friend of John McCain gave me fair warning: McCain was about to become much more conservative, and I would not like what was coming. He was right. I did not like McCain's speech at Jerry Falwell's Liberty University, and I think his support of intelligent design is -- sorry, John -- just plain brainless. But it is not the supposedly new McCain that bothers me, it's the old one: His incessant sword-rattling has gotten just plain rattling.

Read on.

With so much more material with which to criticize McCain it was a bit sad to watch Cohen’s lack of imagination at work.

The media seem to have synthesized their attacks of Republican presidential contenders into two easily mastered genres.

Stupid and cowardly

Anyone who has been alive for the past six years should instantly recognize this line of attack. We all know the main points. National Guard during Vietnam. Mediocre student. No intellectual curiosity. In thrall to his advisors. Etc, etc.

But one only has to look back at George Bush 41 to see the same themes trotted out. The “wimp factor.” Unfamiliar with a supermarket scanner. In thrall to his advisors. Let his TBF Avenger crew die to save his own skin.

Gerald Ford was beaten about the head and shoulders for a misstatement on Poland.

Bob Dole dodged this category mostly because of the perceived sacrificial nature of his candidacy though his being unfamiliar with bills he had cosponsored and voted for in the spirit of go-along-get-along collegiality were briefly a newsworthy item. By and large the media were content to portray Dole as doddering-old-guy and endlessly recycle the film clip of him doing a header off a podium at a campaign stop.

Unbalanced and Dangerous

Barry Goldwater. Richard Nixon. Ronald Reagan. Bob Dole nearly made it into this category in the early stages of his campaign when whiffs of Watergate swirled around him and his role as Gerald Ford’s running mate and slavering attack dog in the 1976 campaign was recalled.

John McCain isn’t a great fit for the “stupid and cowardly” label. He might not have been a preternaturally talented pilot but his physical bravery in unquestioned. After these past years lauding McCain’s political acumen the media were also going to find it difficult to attack his intelligence without calling their own into question. “Unbalanced and dangerous” seemed like a perfect fit.

His LegendaryTemper. He was a PW and he was tortured and we all know what that means. His inability to accept criticism (gasp! BCRA wasn’t to save the Republic it was just to protect McCain). The inevitable comparisons with Captain Queeg lurk on the horizon.

Now Cohen continues.

At the moment McCain is probably the most prominent proponent of the pour-it-on school regarding Iraq…But his position regarding Iraq is really no different from the one he once held, and still does, about Vietnam -- "a noble cause," he has called that misbegotten war…

[…]

…What's more troubling in McCain's case is that too often in the past he has played the role of the sword-rattling heckler. Back in 1994 his plan for what to do about North Korea's developing nuclear program was a version of the old "bomb 'em back to the Stone Age" threat. If sanctions did not work, he said, he had another idea: "I know what they understand, and that is the threat of extinction." Similarly, and later in the decade (1999), McCain was urging the Clinton administration to pour it on with ground troops in Kosovo. Not only did the president disagree but so did the military and much of the Republican leadership.

[…]

…For some -- particularly the political independents who launched him into the political firmament back in 2000 -- McCain may now seem scary…

For a long time those values -- a belief in public service, a visceral hostility toward the ways of Washington's K Street lobbying crowd and a sense of honor that his Vietnamese captors came to appreciate -- obscured the always present, but muffled, sound of drums and bugles.

But the martial music grows louder and more insistent as McCain leads a charge whose mission cannot be defined and whose sound is increasingly grating to the American people….

There you have it. A preview of the McCain ’08 campaign press coverage.

« Dueling June Obama fundraising claims?Comments (2) | "Obambi"Comments (49) »
The Romance Ends 25 Comments (0 topical, 25 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »

Once it becomes appaerent to Mr. Maverick that the media has dropped him, I hope he stops all that preening and pointless bucking of his own party that he does for the MSM, because I think he is a good fellow, and in a vacuum, he could be a great leader.

Oh yeh, and in a related side note, seeing as how his opponent in the general election if he is nominated will likely be a non-veteran, let us just see how quickly military service ceases to matter to all those Donkeyholes who bashed Bush for ONLY having been a Reservist while Kerry spent ALL OF 12 WEEKS in Vietnam.

"Life is too short, can't we all just eat pork and kill some terrorists?"

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

He actually believes what he says and stands up for it.

I won't vote for him because he is wrong on those issues, not because I believe he is preenign for MSM types. Just preening for the MSM I might be able to overlook.

_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The media will choose Door #1 for Romney and Door #2 for Rudy.

"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill

The meme that McCain is a bit unhinged is nothing new. I think if you run a Nexis search, you will find it going back to at least 2000, and you might even find some people tied to the current administration doing their bit to spread it.

It keeps coming up, privately and publicly. It's one of two (the other being "not conservative enough") that you see regularly on this and other conservative boards.

That Richard Cohen, a master of belaboring the painfully obvious, has now joined the parade says very little about anything, other than reaffirming how much a waste of time it is to read Richard Cohen.

If McCain thinks he's going to get my vote by tryin to pass intelligent design off as science, he's got another thing coming. There was "intelligent design" at the beginning, but I'm skeptical of the current "ID" hypothesis floating aroud.

You have no idea how quickly this can metastasize.

-----------
Even those who learn from history are surrounded by those doomed to repeat it.

don't forget the keating 5 stuff and his "gooks" comment from 2000. I agree he'll fit in to the second option. They'll add the age thing as well. Especially if he's running against a 25+ years younger Obama or Edwards.

I don't think Romney or Rudy really fall in either option. With Romney it'll be his Mormonism and with Rudy it'll be his views on abortion. But neither of them really fall into either template, and I think that helps them. I think either Rudy or Romney wins the nomination. Basically, whoever McCain's supporters gravitate towards.

In fact, there hasn't really been a GOP nominee like Rudy or Romney. A northeasterner, non-protestant, ethnic(in Rudy's case), no previous executive branch experience, no "name"/chosen one status, etc...

2008 will be a different and new experience. Unlike anything since 1952 and Eisenhower.

Romney is a governor, like Reagan, and Guiliani was mayor of NYC. Both are executive positions. Granted NYC isn't a state, but it's budget and services are probably more complex than many State Governor's branches. (I don't even like NYC and I'll confess to the truth of that.)

I like it!

That can be our campaign motto: Scare Osama! Scare Kim Jong Ill! Scare Ahmadinejad! Vote for the Crazy Wild Man! Fear us they will!

I had all but written McCain off.

Now I'll have to give a second thought to voting for him.

McCain and Rudy are probably the only two Republicans who could not win a general election. The conservative base won't vote for them. Romney doesn't seem to have it together, but we'll keep an eye on him. Brownback seems to be the only guy with a consistent philosophy, some moral fiber, and the demeanor to win against Hillary or Obama. He is also the closest thing we have had to a Reagan Republican in a long time.

and no one else, meaning Mme President will have a landslide to celebrate.
If there's one solid lesson to be learned from the recent election it's this: the base can't win elections for you (or the Democrats either of course) You need the indpendents and the centrists.

I don't. So I'm not sure that qualifies as "one solid lesson from the recent election."

In any case, you can't win without the base. You need some independents but you certainly don't need all of them. OTOH, you need your entire base to stand a chance.
---
Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. - Milton Friedman

comprises about a third of the elctorate. Unless by "motivated" you mean "motivated to commit massive vote fraud", one third of the electorate is not going to be winning any elections on its own. But cheer up: the Democrat base is barely a fifth of the electorate, so you guys have to win over fewer people like me than they do. But just be clear one thing: you do need win over the rest of us and you very decidedly failed (and for good reason) this time around.

The base is highly motivated and turns out to the last voter.

Overall turnout is 60% (a historic high).

60% - 33% = 27%. The base wins. All by it's lonesome.

I don't disagree with your basic premise, but a really enthusiastic base that amounts to 33% of the electorate is a winner every time.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

The "base" is not 33% of the electorate - the
total Republican registration is about 33% of
the electorate (slightly higher for Dems).

The 'base' is about 33% of the total Republican
party - or just over 10% of the electorate. The
same can be said for the looney left of the Democrats.

Rant Street! www.rant.st

He made the point, I used his numbers to make a counter point. If you don't like the result take it up with him.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

this year (relative to other off year elections) and you guys lost big time. Your base alone cannot win elections. The GOP base is a minority. Accept that fact and plan your political straetgies around it.

And by "that" I mean "There were no significant defections from the rightwing base" - because I seem to recall some stats from Adam citing that GOP claim on the "white" vote dropped to about 51% - which seems to indicate to me that, well, a fair number of high propensity GOP voters might have decided to stray from the reservation this year.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

And by that I mean "one third of the electorate is not going to be winning any elections on its own".

What he said was: In any case, you can't win without the base.

Oh, and "you do need win over the rest of us" is just silly if you're suggesting that the GOP "base" needs to win over "every single non-Democrat" in order to win.

-------------
"I don't know." -- Helen Thomas, when asked by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, "Are we at war, Helen?"

that most of us knew he would get when the election cycle began. I will feel absolutely no pity for man who has ho'd himself to the media for 6 years and left the conservative movement behind in the process. I saw on the local news tonight that Gilmore out of VA is thinking about running for President because he feels those who have stepped up to run are not conservative enough, I think I will have to take another look at him as he has not been governor for awhile, however I did vote for him when he became the governor of VA.

Peace through superior fire power:)

such a problem for some people? Ronald Reagan schmoozed the press like an old pro (well, he was of course!) and that was to his credit.

They were the ones that kissed the butt-lobes. McCain has gone after the false adulation of the media the way a cheap coke whore walks the streets between drug corners.

I was overjoyed to see Richard Cohen turn on him. "Finally" Was what I said to myself.

2006 is done, 2008 is another day and another fight

builds his positions and arguments around stuff the media will suck up. See CFR, torture and G14 for starters.

There is absolutely no "principle" in any stand McCain's taken, the man wouldn't know a principle if it fell on him.
_______________________________
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?

 
Redstate Network Login:
(lost password?)


©2008 Eagle Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved. Legal, Copyright, and Terms of Service