Clearly, he has photos of every single Washington "journalist" making it with goats.

Well, the press has their canidate for '08.

Lord Falwell specializes in miracles. We should all pray at his feet.

Kevin, it's McCain versus Hillary in '08. That's what the press wants and that's what we all get. Didn't you get the memo?

Hop aboard the BS Express!

Back in the 2000 primary season, I thought McCain was clearly superior to Bush but as I've watched his metamorphisis I've become increasingly disgusted, to the point where I think his selling out, and sucking up, has completely tarnished the man. If I had to choose a Republican candidate I'd prefer Newt over McCain, for Newt's schtick isn't as duplicitous or insulting.

If the Washington Monthly site wasn't so dang slow in loading and refreshing I could have been "First". I coulda been a contender.

Tango is right. McCain actually had my interest back in say 1999-2000. Sadly, he sold his soul since.

Sorry, ckelly. Here, take my spot. I'm too grouchy to appreciate it today anyway.

McCain has gotten his credentials by schmoozing with reporters on many occasions. Nothing he says or does now will undo the hours he spent on his bus having a beer with those people.

The Republicans who run everything want McCain in 2008. They also want Hillary in 2008, to run against McCain. The msm has been given their talking points, and nothing will change it for now. Don't worry about it. The msm has been so wrong for so long that it's really getting kinda funny.

the press is getting us all nice and lubricated so they can slide McCain deep up our asses, in fall 08.

Seriously, do these pundits actually read or listen to the stuff they comment on? Or do they sip martinis while the boss punches their timecards?

Failing a total torching of the Constitution (just one more attack needed, aQ!), Al, tbroz, and I need a new Jesus / Daddy-figure to keep us safe!

The good news is that McCain still thinks Iraq can be won.

That's going to be tough koolaid to sell in 2008.

Does anyone have a link to a transcript of what McCain actually said?

McCain gets points for just mentioning Iraq, what did he acutally say?

He also gets points for being "smart" enough not to raise controversial issues? Which is it?

McCain at least appears to get the opposite treatment from the ole Catch22, praise if you do and praise if you dont.

The lesson here is to have a press-friendly strategy. The Clinton campaign in '92 simplified the travel billing for press traveling with the campaign and reaped the benefits in favorable coverage. McCain's gimmick has been access and quotes which he has packaged as "straight talk" and "authenticity." Given his limited resources in 2000 he had to milk the free media to contend and he did so successfully until South Carolina. Bush's approach has always been high-level catering and free booze.

...but somehow that doesn't affect his straight talking reputation.

and one of the guys on MTP said that McCain's prior activities are enough to justify the "maverick" moniker for ever? Apparently, he can sell-out now (or 2 years ago) and still is the maverick in the Senate.

Yes, the press certainly has their candidate!

I for one am sick and tired of having a government run by people the media likes having a beer with.

It would be nice if they could set their personal feelings and stop thinking that just because they like this guy, he should be President. You know, competency and positions and character--these things mean a hell of a lot more to the American people than personal charm.

Look the thing that liberals don't get, that liberals need to get, is that appearances count A LOT. Why does the press think he's a sincere straight shooter? Because he looks like one. That's all. And thiat's all it takes. He could get causght on outright lies daily and it wouldn't make a bit of difference. That's why our next candidate (not Hillary) must be some one with the appearence, as well as the reality of beieng a straight shooter.

It's simple.

The media made George Bush in 2000. He was a great narractive and they ran with it. Their plan B would have been McCain, another good narrative.

They realize now that they goofed. Instead of a serious self examination of whether journalists should even be in the business of pre-picking winners, they are trying to cancel out their earlier mistake by going to Plan B for 2008. They seem to have concluded that their "mistake" in 2000 was in not picking McCain in the first place.

Don't ask me to explain the logic. I'm just explaining what "is."

The actual Republican't straight talker is Chuck Hagel, but thankfully the MSM doesn't realize it, cuz if nominated, Chuck would be a VERY formidable candidate. Much more no-nonsense gravitas than McCain without the hair-trigger temper. Or at least if he has one, he is much better at keeping it under wraps.

"Clearly, he has photos of every single Washington "journalist" making it with goats.'

roflmao!

Because McCain defended Iraq in a conservative setting, he gets “some points for courage!”

the setting may have been conservative, but the audience was national. As you have shown by your own notice of it, and by quoting national commentators.

Kevin I have posted this another thread as well.

In light of the recent revelations, could you tell us clearly what the policy of the Washington Monthly is regarding the confidentiality of the IP addresses of the posters. Do you store them in the database along with the comments? If you do, under what circumstances do you release these addresses to the third parties?

Does anyone really think people like Hillary or McCain have a chance in 2008?

It was very courageous for McCain to play it safe. Only a true maverick would go in front of an audience of potentially hostile Christians and argue that "Americans deserve more than respect from one another," acknowledging that those who disagree with him do have have some rights and should not be tried for treason. He also said that if he were President, he would veto any law forcing anyone to surrender their Bibles.

McCain is way too sophisticated for you poor Kevin. You see, most morons would assume a pandering speech to the far right to be less than "straight talk." BUT, McCain knows this and so his suprise is too pander--in other words he is saying what no one expected. Truly radical! It is similar to Colbert, who clearly isn't pandering with his right-wind rhetoric. Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!!!

Typos! too=to & wind=wing

In light of the recent revelations, could you tell us clearly what the policy of the Washington Monthly is regarding the confidentiality of the IP addresses of the posters. Do you store them in the database along with the comments? If you do, under what circumstances do you release these addresses to the third parties?

Wouldn't it be the ISP provider, not the WaMo, that would have this data (and could potentially be asked for it)?

So what do we do about the idle press and their phoned in narratives?

One thing you'll notice on Somerby's site is how often the "liberal" side on these pundit shows goes ahead and recites the same exact spin points for McCain.

Can we at least get Donna Brazile (and Ted Kennedy for that matter) to stop calling him a straight talker and a maverick for crying out loud?!

Is anyone from the Democratic party leadership even remotely aware of how politics works?

Incredibly irritating. What age am I going to be when the Democrats figure out what it takes to elect a president?

Hint: start by refusing to parrot verbatim the language from campaign brochures of opposition candidates.

Kevin Drum - are you insane???

McCain was delivering a commencement address, with the graduates and their families there.

What kind of hate-filled embecile do you have to be to want McCain to 'spend a couple of sentences' criticizing the university?

moderleft

The Washington Monthly has access to your IP address whenever you click on the site or post anything. The question is if they save it along with your comments.

"He gives a bland, uncontroversial speech"

I'd take that criticism seriously if I had ever seen anything you'd written that bore the slightest trace of imagination, honesty or eloquence.

One thing that I think we are going to be resigned to is the fact that the major "enablers" of the Bush disaster - the big media organizations and big chunks of the Democratic leadership (and the overlap between the two) will never ever admit they were wrong.

McCain is always a rebel - even though he never did anything to slow Bush down. Oh yeah, he talked a lot, but he never did anything.
Bush is a straight shooter despite a laundry list of mis-representations. Cheney is competent, despite a laundry list of unbelievable disasters under his watch. Rice is a great intellectual, despite the fact she never published as an academic, etc.

It's horrible to contemplate what that's doing to the country. And as Jared Diamond pointed out - it's a horrible sign for our country that the ruling class seems to accept no responsiblity for running the country, well, responsibly.

But it has opened up a huge opportunity for you and many other bloggers. As more and more folks realize that they're being sold a load of hooey by TV and print, they turn to the internet to see whether anyone is still sane.

OK, OK, I finally get it.

Liberals think their job is to bash and criticize conservatives, doesn't matter what the setting is.

Are you at a funeral for a civil rights leader? Go ahead and bash Bush, even if he is sitting a few feet away from you - and even if he came to the funeral to honor the deceased.

Are you giving a commencement address at a conservative university? Go ahead and bash the university even though it would embarass those who invited you, and would detract from the ceremony for the graduates and their families.

What it it about Liberals, that they have the need to become lecturing Schoolmarms?

at least senator mccain found time to take a shot at the blogospere:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTM5ZjFmNTdhZDE1ZjM0ZTFlNzU2ZDUwYzQ4ODRhMDY=

The Washington Monthly has access to your IP address whenever you click on the site or post anything. The question is if they save it along with your comments.

Thanks for the clarification

McCain is the Green Day of Politics. He can do no wrong even though anyone with sense can see that there is a lot not to like.

Pander to the religious right, or steal Kink's riffs: even though it is obvious no one says anything because there is a narrative that is held to as truth. And to break from it would cause great consternation among those
with vested interests...which are many.

Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke at Adelphi University this week, but you wouldn't know it from reading the blogs.

Strangely, it is only newsworthy when a Republican addresses a graduating class.

McCain could be a pleasant surprise if elected. He's too conservative for my taste, but then again, so is Hillary. Any administration is going to be so much better than the current one. We just have to hope that Bush doesnt put the world at war and paralyze the economy in the interim in a desparate effort to salvage a less than fecal stained legacy.

Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke at Adelphi University this week, but you wouldn't know it from reading the blogs.

Well, that tells you how much "the blogs" think of Sen. Clinton. Contrary to what you and your fellow trolls think, Hillary Clinton is not a universally revered hero of the American Left and the universal worshipped icon of the Democratic Party.

She's just the Democrat Republicans hope most to run against, or the 2008 model of 2004's Sen. Lieberman.

Strangely, it is only newsworthy when a Republican addresses a graduating class.

Well, no. It attracts most attention from the commentariat, of course, when, for instance, an oft-discussed likely presidential hopeful that has made a show of being a "maverick" detached from a particular element of their parties base makes a speech in a forum closely associated with that element of the base. Its draws less attention when other politicians make speeches to other groups, without some similarly significant source of interest.

McCain,in speaking at Liberty Univ. (an apparent oxymoron,but I digress) followed in the footsteps of Sean Hannity who gave last year's address and was awarded an honorary doctorate.
McCain has not only sought rapprochement with the religious right,he has admitted his move. So,it's not because he's any better but if a politician simply admits he is pandering for votes,the inside the beltway media love it. See,he's one of them playing the crowd for laughs (votes,laughs-same thing).

Kevin, major props to you for mentioning this very important Daily Howler post. Of course, most of your critics in this comments section miss Somerby's crucial point that there's really not much wrong with what McCain did-- the problem is with the mainstream media, which interprets his every action as demonstrating "authenticity" and "bravery" while pushing the narrative that all mainstream Democrats are "fake" and "inauthentic." The money quote:

"In our view, McCain is pretty much just like Dems. No, we dont think hed "sell his soul"-- but neither did Kerry, Gore or Clinton. But by the rules of the current game, John McCain has to be vastly different. And every event is going to "prove" it until Dems dare to make it all stop."

Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke at Adelphi University this week, but you wouldn't know it from reading the blogs.

I must have escaped Sen. Hillary Clinton's past denunciation of the President or Founder of the Adelphi U. If no such denunciation exists, the lament does not make any sense.

tbros,

Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke at Adelphi University this week, but you wouldn't know it from reading the blogs.

Strangely, it is only newsworthy when a Republican addresses a graduating class.

Unworthy of you, tbrosz. The point is that it was Liberty U. McCain could have said the usual graduation-speaker's usual stuff anywhere else (indeed, I'm sure he has, many times), and not have been noticed.

That said, what was McCain supposed to do when he was invited to speak? The possibilities are none of them enticing:

(1) Decline on some excuse — "pressure of work," a prior engagement at Yet-More-Podunk U. (to be hastily arranged and backdated afterwards), &c.;

(2) Decline on the grounds that the students, the parents, and the faculty are a crowd of bigots he doesn't want to be seen within a mile of;

(3) Accept, then use the address to tell the assembled students, parents, and faculty that they are a crowd of bigots he wouldn't have been seen within a mile of, except that they all needed a good talking-to; or

(4) Do more or less what he did, as I understand it, which is show up, say what commencement speakers generally do say, and leave the actual commencement participants feeling good.

I gather (2) and (3) are preferred around here. I don't agree. And of the others, (4) is the less dishonest.

Sen. Hillary Clinton spoke at Adelphi University...

That wasn't the real Brosz, unless he's given up on his dream of flying beanie rockets for all.

Tangoman said "I'd prefer Newt over McCain, for Newt's schtick isn't as duplicitous or insulting."

Tell that to Mrs. Newts 1, 2, & 3. They know better.

(It's not that McCain is acceptable, but that Newt is equally awful.)

From the Media and regular guy/gal stand point, isn't that response to McCain much like a Stockholm syndrom - the best of the worst is wonderful?

Not only did McCain pander to the Fundie Right, but he pandered to a guy who is a nutcase even by the skewed standards of that community.

That's now far McCain's willing to prostitute himself to get to the White House: to climb in bed with a hateful, bigoted loony-tune.

What kind of hate-filled embecile do you have to be to want McCain to 'spend a couple of sentences' criticizing the university?

what the fuck is an "embicile" ?

whatever it is, i'm sure Falwell, Liberty's founder, qualifies. cause, ya know, he's the guy who said the US "deserved" 9/11:

What we saw on Tuesday, as terrible as it is, could be miniscule if, in fact, God continues to lift the curtain and allow the enemies of America to give us probably what we deserve. -- Falwell talking to Pat Robertson

what kind of "embicile" goes to a place associated with an America-hater like Falwell and doesn't let em have it with both barrels ? are you stupid, or do you think it's your job is to bash and criticize liberals, regardless of what the setting is ?

Given what aWol did in South Carolina and their disgraceful hug, McCain needs to have his arms twisted up behind his back one more time to knock some sense into him.

I can't help noticing how similar Kevin Drum's complaints about the media's treatment of McCain are to those of the Bush campaign during the 2000 primaries and afterward.

On McCain's Liberty University speech, well, just read the thing. It isn't going to make anyone forget the Gettysburg Address, but it's a pretty good speech that sounds as if McCain wrote at least some of it himself. Show me a nationally prominent Democrat who can give a speech like that, and then complain all you want about how the media give McCain special treatment.

The religious right has become the Republican party's "Frankenstein's Monster". They fed that fire and fueled the flames. McCain's people are only the latest to make a calculated attempt to stay on their good side. The only problem is that by the time 2008 rolls around, the nutcases of the religious right will be ready to stone any candidate that doesn't completely placate them. Let the circus begin - it's gonna get a lot hotter!

What I find stupefying is that you thought the media would do anything differently. Why? What makes you have faith in people that have done almost nothing but fail for the last 20 years?

Zathras--
Most any Democrat could have given that exact same speech. Hell, a lot of them probably have.

The point that Kevin and Bob Somerby, etc. are trying to make is a very good one: why does McCain get praised as a "straight-talker" at times when he does and says things that are identical to other politicians, other politicians who are called "hypocrites" or "phony" when they do or say the exact same things?? It's not a matter of whether you liked his speech or not. It was probably a fine speech (I didn't see it).

But if you can't see an obvious double standard here, I think you are quite naive. Words have to have a meaning. If one person is a "phony" for taking middle-of-the-road positions, another person can't be a "maverick" when he does the same things for the same reasons. It just doesn't make sense.

Zathras, meet Howard Dean.

kokblok is sure that most any Democrat could have given the same speech McCain did, a speech kokblok assures us he has not read.

Thanks for clearing that up.

We have heard all the complaints about McCain on this thread before -- from the Bush campaign and the (mostly) Republican opponents of McCain-Feingold back in the 2000-2001 period, and from columnists like George Will since then. They all want to know why the media likes McCain so much, when he obviously is not perfect; why they portray him more favorably than legions of politicians who do nothing without political calculation and spin when he obviously does some things with political calculation and spin; why they insist on regarding him as a principled conservative when he is obviously not a liberal.

From Bush's people I could actually understand this. McCain hit Bush a lot harder in 2000 than Al Gore ever did; Bush's supporters would be less than human if they did not remember and resent this. But McCain has not really ever done anything to Democrats, not outside Arizona anyway. He is more appealing to the media and the electorate not just because he is such a terrific guy but because the leading Democratic politicians today are a pretty dreary lot. So are the leading Republicans, and if you don't believe me just listen to them for five minutes.

Now, McCain's critics are certainly entitled to their opinions. I just wish they'd have a little more self-respect, instead of always boo-hooing about how unfair the media is being by not saying the things they wish it would say. This also has been a longstanding habit of Bush Republicans, though since Democrats are pretty much all doing it now too you can't call it a distinguishing characteristic anymore.

McCain's speech was the same type of good cop crap Laura Bush was peddling with her "don't use gay marriage as a campaign issue" nonsense. They're basically using the same BS tactic Bush used in 2004 when he kept saying he respected Kerry's service in Vietnam while sending everybody including his dad and wife to run interference for the Swifties. They're saying "It's legitimate to debate X, but we must all be civil" and then send out smear merchants to do their worst without sullying themselves. And when it gets really nasty in the fall they and the press will blame us for the low level of discourse.

McCain will be an easy target for the Dem nominee, if, and only if, the candidate can adopt the Rovian tactic of attacking on strength, that is, making his alleged good character the issue.

If Hillary were to actually do something to convince the Republicans that she would not run in 2008-- would be it a matter of seconds, minutes, hours, or days until the Republicans kicked McCain to the curb?

歌星,歌曲,写真,图片,论坛
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here
here

Hi, great site

Hi, great site