Just How Did John McCain Obtain What He Has in the Bank with the Press?

[L. Coyote]

Just How Did John McCain Obtain What He Has in the Bank with the Press?
By PressThink. - http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2008/03/26/just-how-did-john-mccain-obtain-what-he-has-in-the-bank-with-the-press/


“Maybe ‘Iran is training Al Qaeda is McCain’s way of signaling that he intends to pick up where Bush and Cheney left off in discarding the whole reality-based approach to policy-making and public communication.”

NBC’s political director, Chuck Todd, this week: “Even if he gets dinged on the experience stuff, ‘Oh, he says he’s Mr. Experience. Doesn’t he know the difference between this stuff?’ He’s got enough of that in the bank, at least with the media, that he can get away with it.”

He’s got enough of that in the bank. This phrase made people wonder what kind of depositary institution we were talking about. (The immediate occasion was McCain’s strange assertion on March 18 that Al Qaeda in Iraq was being trained by the Iranians.)

* Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly: “Remind me again: where does all this cred come from?”

* Glenn Greenwald at Salon: “Whether McCain’s foreign policy views are entitled to respect is something that the voters ought to be deciding .....

............

[Justitia]

1. He invites them to backyard BBQs at his mansion. -eom

[TwilightGardener]

2. If he was running for President of the Media, then the media can

presume to step in and cover for his gaffes, lies and "misspeaks" with a clean conscience. Since he's running for the President of the United States, they are dong a HUUUGE disservice to the voters in saying "Oops, a little error, but he's not usually like this--we all know what he really means, he really does know what he's talking about--just overlook this." They are, once again as they did before Iraq, falling down on the job. And it's us who get fucked.

[DJ13]

3. McCain sucks up to both the media and lobbyists

Even if theres a reporter that doesnt like McCain, that reporter's corporate owner probably contributes to McCain's campaign fund.

He's insulated against the criticism the American people need to know about a 71 year old who aint as sharp as he once was.

[Clear Blue Sky]

4. He's a "maverick", as they like to call him.

[Clear Blue Sky]

5. Also because he has opposed Bush on many issues.

[TwilightGardener]

6. Um, no he hasn't. He agrees with Chimpy on the vast majority of the GOP platform.

[garry_neal_hazitin]

7. wrong on

john mccain....wrong on gWb's pre-emptive war......

john mccain...wrong on SCHIP healthcare......

john mccain....wrong on (admiitedly so) economics....

john mccain....wrong on endorsement of bush policies....

john mccain...wrong on youth.....

john mccain...wrong on fullfilling senate responsibility (absent 58% of time)...

john mccain...wrong on al quida/iran relationship....

john mccain...wrong on GI Bill For Post-9/11 Veterans......

john mccain...wrong on....mccain sez 'No One' Believes Iraq 'Diverted Our Attention' From Quest To Catch Bin Laden...

john mccain...wrong on....66 current/former lobbyists employed by his presidential campaign....

john mccain....just plain wrong....

[vixengrl]

10. Right on! McCain's positions give us a lot to work with.

Welcome to DU. :hi:

[housewolf]

8. Access

He gives them access. He is much more available to them than the Hillary or Obama. He talks to them as if he likes them and they like that.

[depakid]

9. The corporate media will run cover for him from now until November

Some will be glaring omissions- and some will be transparent propaganda, but either way NO Democratic candidate is ever going to get a fair shake.

I sure hope whoever the nominee is that they realize that AND have a strategy for dealing with it.

[vixengrl]

11. He's got a "story" that works with the press.

If it's a good story, why change it? He's a survivor, and people like survivors. He's a war hero, and people need heroes. The problem is he's a lousy candidate for president, and the "story" needs to be shaken up. I don't think the "survivor" or "war hero" part of his image can really be effectively touched--there would be cries of "swiftboating" (and that's only okay if you are a Republican--I guarandamntee.)And he truly did suffer something horrendous in Vietnam. It's the "maverick" and "experience" aspects of the image that can and should be brought into sharp, realistic perpective.

The reality is, the "maverick" and "straight talk" lines that worked (although, you know, they didn't beat W.) in 2000, just won't work as well, now. He's been dragged to the right often enough, and his positions actually start to look inconsistent as a result--take torture. Take his gradually-found willingness to not just accept but court support from the religious right. Contrast what he claims he's learned from the Keating Five debacle with the Vicki Iseman story and the fact that he still does a lot of business with lobbyists. Take a look at his Campaign Finance reform position, and weigh it against the fact that he accepted public funding and is not staying true to the law. He starts looking like a flip-flopper, and less like a "maverick." To explain these discrepancies, he's going to do what he always does--speak at length--there's the opportunity. There is no good way to reconcile that much movement in his positions. His "straight talk" will come off like straight-up b.s.

The other thing that has to be considered is experience is a two-way street. He has spent a long time in the Senate now, and workd with a number of people. It is troubling that many military people and people who are solid on foreign policy have real concerns about his positions and his temperment. That is a draw-back that can be exploited. Also, experience doesn't count if you don't learn anything from it--it's like saying you have a lot of third-grade experience because you've repeated it often enough. Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld had considerable experience with foreign policy before they were part of this administration. They screwed up--big time--in the execution of this war. McCain maintains that he was "always" in disagreement with Rumsfeld's methods--but his criticism really wasn't "out there" until it was clear the dude was on his way out, from what I can tell. And he has made some "Cheney-like" divorced from reality statements--that simply has to be addressed.

The best thing about directly calling attention to his deficiencies on the *issues* is that the Democratic candidate will be able to "stay classy"--you know? It also plays to Democratic strengths--wonkiness. Point-by-points plans to fix problems. The message--in brief: McCain has experience--what is he planning on doing with it? If he can't articulate something new or relevant regarding the Iraq morass, the economy, the health care issue, etc, he's just going to look useless.

It also doesn't hurt to repeat the meme: why does the press ignore McCain's shortcomings? Why do they love him so? It could provoke the kind of introspection that would result in a "We are not *either* in love with him! So there!" backlash.