Un-Republican
By Mitch Berg
“Why the hell won’t Republicans or conservatives mix it up with the media? Why do Republicans always let the Tics and the media (pardon the redundancy) get away with gang-raping Republicans – see Rod Grams and Alan Fine and the 2000 ambush and the 2004 60 Minutes attacks on Bush? Why do Republicans take the proverbial “high road” and hope that the media that is the active player in the smear, every friggin’ time, will somehow turn around and get the actual truth out in the end?”
Well, merry friggin’ Chrismas; Mac fought back.
The piece about McCain’s friendly relations with a telecommunications lobbyist — long-discussed in political circles and planned for weeks by McCain operatives — was the first test of his ability to confront a public-relations crisis since becoming the GOP’s presumptive nominee.
But the reaction may have said as much about the mindset of the conservative movement on the brink of the general election as it did about McCain and his team.
And the dead-tree media are whining like shower-room nancyboys about it:
By Thursday morning, when the article appeared in the print editions of The Times, the McCain campaign had begun an aggressive attack against the newspaper, calling the article a smear campaign worthy of The National Enquirer. It was a symphony to the ears of Mr. McCain’s conservative critics.
Ed groin-kicks the Times’ whinging:
She managed to make the New York Times the victim of “an aggressive attack” by McCain over a smear — without explaining what the smear actually was! The Times piece originally led with an accusation of a sexual affair for which they offered exactly zero evidence. Calling it a smear worthy of the National Enquirer isn’t an aggressive attack, it’s a factual description.
Yeah, I’m happy.
February 23rd, 2008 at 10:24 pm
This is one of the reasons I’m not terribly disappointed McCain is the probable nominee. He’s dangerous for the media to attack after they’ve carefully built his reputation, he’s not willing to roll over for folks (loved the Castro quote), and he’s got about as good a reputation as a politician can have. We could have done worse, and only slightly better. And he is probably the best shot for getting the vast middle, especially if BHO’s real positions become known before the general election. “Most liberal senator” isn’t going to fly with the electorate.
Seeing the rest of the primaries play out will be interesting on the Dem side. The political calculus for HRC is interesting. She’s finding there aren’t many friends in the party for her, just acquaintances and brokers. If McCain wins in Nov it’s likely he’s a one-termer just because of the serious ageing presidents get along with his past history. So, if HRC can keep it close with BHO and BHO loses she still has an argument that she might have been able to win it and she’ll be the front runner for 2012. So she’s got incentive to keep in it and keep it as close as she can for her future campaigns. After all, it’s not like she’s ticking off anyone on the fence in the Dem power structure.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
Yeah, I like that….you go after McCain, he will take it very personal. That’s a bad trait if it’s a co-worker, but I think a good trait in politics. Or at least it can be when there are those out to destroy you just because there is an “R” next to your name/
Now, did I see a headline that Nader is running? He will get far fewer votes then the Dems fear, but still, it will be both entertaining and scarey to watch what they will do to try to stop him. Remember the lawsuits in 2004 to try to keep his name off of the ballot in certain states?
February 24th, 2008 at 2:24 pm
We could have done worse, and only slightly better.
Sad but true. The best persons for the job don’t want it.
February 24th, 2008 at 6:44 pm
Would you want the job? I’d pass. It takes a certain kind of person to run for president and live that life and few of them actually deserve to win it. McCain was, like most of the GOP pack, acceptable if relatively uninspiring.
February 24th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
1988-Bush Pater. Uninspiring but more inspiring than old lib Dukakis. GOP win.
1992-Bush Pater Again. Even less inspiring, but still would’ve won over Clinton if Perot hadn’t stepped in.
1996-Dole. Wholy uninspiring. Would’ve lost even without Perot effect. 2nd Clinton win.
2000-Bush Filius. Uninspiring. Lost the popular vote to Gore but won a slim majority of the electoral votes.
2004-Bush Filius again. Won because Kerry sucked the inspiration from even the souls of Democrats.
2008-McCain inspires everyone but GOP regulars. He may possibly eek out a win over Obama/Clinton but will not help the party down ticket. What the heck is wrong with the Republican party?