McCain's Real Problem

> but that only proved their point that
> McCain was just being McCain, the principled
> maverick.

Campaigns will spin what they can spin of course, and you can't blame them for trying.

But do you think the traditional media will ever acknowledge that McCain was _never_ a "principled maverick"? I thought after the hug and kiss from W that there might be a bit of embarrassment about previous coverage of McCain and at least a bit of rethinking on how his spin would be handled in the media, but instead McCain seems to have received almost 6.5 years of additional favorable treatment.

Cranky

McCain's Potemkin Village moment in Iraq, combined with the smear he tried to push against Michael Ware, finished him off for good. It didn't help when he went to the debates and delivered that scripted comment about chasing bin Laden to the gates of hell, then flashed that weird little grin. Guy just seems like he's losing it more and more.

You do bring up a point Jay that I hope you address further.

John McCain was the press favorite in 2000. He still didn't win, but it was clearly obvious that the press corps loved him.

Statistical analysis of the general election 2000 showed that the coverage of Gore was more negative than against Bush.

Heisenberg uncertainty principle applies to the press. News doesn't just come out of the ether. Who are you all supporting this time, and why? Biden for some reason is convinced that the press is going to keep him in the thing longer than anybody else would deserve. Who appointed you kingmakers?

Of course the Iraq war is the worst blunder in American history after the Civil War itself.

How anyone could support Bush after what he has done is beyond belief. Granted that now in Iraq getting out is not as easy as some would claim. But Bush and Cheney deserve capital punishment for what they have done.

The point of calling him a maverick originally was that he was supposedly a maverick AGAINST DC conventional wisdom, and with a good amount of populist support on his side in 2000.

But now you're saying that the press continued to view him as a maverick because he continued to support his own and Bush's failed ruling policies DESPITE prevailing public opinion.

You, or the press collectively, seem to have changed something in this retrospective account.

Either way, though, the assumption is that McCain is a "principled maverick."

If the facts don't fit the theory, so much the worse for the facts, eh?

This is a fine post, Jay. Thanks.

"The expectation that the press would acclaim McCain's steadfastness on Iraq and leave it at that was misguided."

In McCain's defense, that was a wholly reasonable view of the press at the time. Even after the elections last year, after everything war critics had said was (1) right and (2) believed by the bulk of the public to be right, you could/can still see media folks saying that "every serious Democrat" supported the war.

The press's clubbiness and detachment from reality made the McCain camp's calculation plausible. But the war was just so poorly run, and poorly justified, that it became unpopular.

Also, I can't go along with assuming that McCain believes what he says. He claimed that opposing torture was a big deal, but rolled over when the administration asked him twice. It's still part of his Straight Talk Brand, but it's not something he's actually willing to fight for. So it's not implausible that the pro-war stance is part of the same schtick.

It was just so obvious that he was selling himself out as he made nice with Bush, Falwell, etc.

His fall from grace is less about Iraq (he seems to truly have persuaded himself on that stance) and more about his shocking decision to actually compromise with the right.

I agree with Jay Carney that it was just less likely that the press corps was going to be fooled again, given the current climate which is more supportive of media critique and analysis.

Still, one might mention that the Republican Presidential primaries are not currently the best place to flaunt the pro-business view of immigration reform.

I'm not saying that Jay Carney's wrong when it comes to independents, and the ability to look beyond the standard fawning over John McCain, but Republicans tend to vote in Republican primaries, too. Since every Republican presidential candidate is trying to declare "himself as the biggest Iraq hawk," there must be a difference between John McCain and the other Presidential candidates. When you look at the rate of decline in his support, immigration is clearly the major factor.

Summing up: I agree with Jay Carney's version as being an important part of the story, but clearly the Republican Party is still pro-war. Immigration is what cut McCain off from any major support he had with party conservatives.
(Looking up supporting data... sorry about the "gut analysis", but I'm sure some Republicans here may have something to say.)

JAY,

Is it true that Republicans still back Bush and the Iraq War? Is the Republican Party 29% of the electorate? Which one of these statements would you like us to believe? Let us know.

chuckle.

"Is it true that Republicans still back Bush and the Iraq War? Is the Republican Party 29% of the electorate? Which one of these statements would you like us to believe? Let us know."

-----------------------

There are many who have conjectured that the remaining 30% (give or take) who support the Iraq war, are in fact the Republican base - people who think the past 7 years have been "O'TAY!"

Iraq/Bush certainly lost moderate Republican support, as well as any remaining moderate Democrats (save for Lieberman), but the base water-carriers seem to be willing to follow him to Hell on Iraq.

So, in fact, both of your statements could be true.

Then, there is also the straight statistical idea that: If Republicans make up approx. 50% of the country, and 30% of the country supports the war - assuming those people are Republicans, then 60% of Republicans support the war still.

This shouldn't be surprising. If more base Republicans were defecting in mass numbers, more Republican senators might actually be compelled to vote for redeployment, instead of just spouting vagueries about "changing strategy", and "a new direction".

- Scott

McCain is part of the group that likes to call itself "moderates." If the last 6 years are truly representative, moderation is now more or less equivalent to radicalism. McCain and Lieberman are even more fanatical and unyielding on Iraq, than Bush himself. The big disappointment for McCain is he can no longer count on the press to say how courageous he is, nor is the press as important as it once was.

This is a really good post. I'm especially happy that Jay is thinking and writing about the media itself as an actor on the political stage, and explicitly focusing on the ways in which media biases and preferences can influence political outcomes.

Too many political journalists decline to report on the role of the media in American politics, even where that role is outcome-changing -- for example, Karen Tumulty has said on this blog that covering the media's influence on politics is a job for media critics, not political reporters.

As a follow-up post, I'd love to see Jay address the media's continuing love affair with stories about how calculating, hypocritical, insincere and effeminate Democratic candidates are. It's safe to write about the media falling out of love with McCain, since the story doesn't reflect poorly at all on the media.

But writing about why the press runs John Edwards haircut stories non-stop, while ignoring or trivializing real news? Maybe not so safe. In any case, I'd love to get Jay's take on this, now that we're focusing on the media's role in American politics:

Why does the mainstream press endlessly promote story lines about Democratic candidates as calculating, hypocritical, insincere and effeminate (or, in Hillary's case, emasculating)?

"I don't doubt that he sincerely believes what he says. But his isolation on Iraq is matched only by Bush's"

Let us not forget Mr. Lieberman. I'm not sure how to break this to you but from where I'm sitting it appears that much of the Washington press corps including your esteemed colleague Mr. Klein share in the lonliness that comes from holding on to a position that has lost the support of most Americans. They might not be quite as far out on the limb as Bush, McCain and Lieberman but they've certainly been among those advocating for at least one or two more Friedman Units of American involvement. I think that careful reflection would reveal that to be a significantly more marginal position than any one of you have yet to acknowlege.

Thanks for the post Jay -- you've been silent for too long. The insight is appreciated.

At the end of the day, I think McCain has simply had too much time in the spotlight to remain popular. The longer a person is subjected to intense scrutiny, the less they are able to keep everyone happy. A large part of maintaining a positive image is revealing only what will please the majority of potential constituents.

I would like to see our current see Senator McCain be supportive of more international affairs that affect our place in this world. We should not forget the commitment made towards the U.N. Millennium Goals (a pact of ending extreme world hunger by the year 2025) in 2000. According to The Borgen Project, an annual $19 billion dollars is needed to eliminate half of the extreme poverty affecting the world by the year 2015. To my sense, it is almost unacceptable to have spent so far more than $340 billion in Iraq only, when we have more than war immunities to change the world and eliminate poverty.

McCain's problems with the general public and the press may be related to the Iraq War, and that effect may be bleeding over into the GOP primary pre-season. But the main reason for McCain's hemorrhage of Republican support is immigration. It's all about the Mexicans; ask any wingnut, they'll gladly confirm it.

In addition to his obsessive and unyielding Iraq stance, McCain was done in by his inconsistency.

McCain invested his time carefully crafting the image of the independent, then he turns himself into a right-wing extremist.

He became an enemy of the Repub base when he first projected himself as a moderate. They have never really forgiven him. Having won support among moderates and independents, he then turns himself into a Free Republic Lunatic, and proceeds to alienate another group of supporters.

Now his only supporter is Joe Lieberman, and he doesn't understand why.

We need no moderates
We need no neocons
All we need are good liberals.
Screw the rest.

I think everyone should stay inside...there's a leprosy epidemic.

I think you overlook a very important point. No one believes McCain's stand on Iraq is principled. It has nothing to do with popularity, but yet another example of his cynical willingness to cater to the Republican base.

So, after losing because he of a willingness to buck the base that earned him his maverick credentials, he capitulates and vacillates to recast himself as an unthinking Bushbot at precisely the moment standing firm on principle would have made him look prescient.

No one that stupid can be President. Oh, wait...

A good post, but I am struck by this statement:

"My sense, and my read of polling data, is that like most Americans, even those Republicans who say they still support the war are overwhelmingly sick of it."

You don't take that statement to its logical conclusion, which is that like most Americans, even those Republicans who say they still support Bush and Cheney are overwhelmingly sick of them.

Almost half the public supports impeachment of Bush, now. More than half the public supports impeachment of Cheney, now.

What about the less than half that say they oppose impeachment? Most of them who are not delusional are thoroughly sick of Bush and Cheney, and their opposition to impeachment is paper-thin.

If the Congress and the elite media ever began to catch up with the public by taking impeachment seriously, that 40 to 45 percent who *claim* they oppose impeachment would evaporate quickly.

"... It's one thing to take an unpopular stand on an issue of moderate importance. ... But Iraq is not just any issue. There is a serious national debate over whether Bush's invasion of Iraq is the biggest foreign policy fiasco in more than a generation, if not since the dawn of the Republic. At the moment, Bush (and, by extension, McCain) are on the losing side of that debate. ... The issue is simply too monumental, especially for a candidate basing his campaign in large part on his national security credentials."

Your next post should apply this same sharp thinking to Rudolph Giuliani, who has done nothing but evade questions on Iraq, the biggest issue of the day, while trying to campain on "his national security credentials".

In fact, none of the Republican candidates have done much to distance themselves from the Bush policy in Iraq, except for vaguely describing themselves as "strong" on security, while describing the Democrats as "weak". You should devote an entire issue of Time to examining the smokescreen thrown up by all the leading Republican candidates on the issue of the Iraq war, the leading issue of the day.

The 'total issue' is that a campaign comes up with a slogan and the MSM buys it. En mass they all grab the buzz words. Whether it is 'maverick' or 'at the end of the day' or 'al Qaeda', the need to be part of the 'in' crowd drowns out any true reporting.

From think tanks to lobbyists to political appointees, we have a great number of recycles [stagnation]. It reminds me of the 80's when the buyouts, etc. were throwing all kinds of executives in the unemployment line. Wall-la, the onslaught of the 'business consultants'. The 'losers' with inflated egos and resumes suddenly became 'business experts' and were hired to be saviors.

Pardon me, but tell me why McCain with all these highly paid consultants took the 'Straight Talk Express' to Western IA on an extended trip? McCain was missing votes in the Senate and sponsoring the [Bush] McCain-Kennedy Immigration bill. Western IA is represented in Congress by Steve King (R). Talk about not connecting the dots. Steve won his 3rd term with 59% of the vote in 06 when the Dems did well statewide.

http://thinkprogress.org/2006/07/13/king-fence/
http://www.house.gov/steveking/

Jay, ya' gotta admit that after the 'biggy' security busts from the Pizza Delivery Six at Ft. Dix to the the Homeless Dude exploding the Jet Fuel Farm this one is highly suspicious as they coincide with the natives getting restless dropping the poll support numbers with the 'AQ' following us here to kill our kids.

Chertoff now has 'gut feeling' and you're not reporting this one:

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/4958254.html

Olbermann ain't buyin' and has to be exposed [snark] by the 'liberal media news busters'

http://newsbusters.org/node/14004

Carney is wrong. Romney, Giulliani and Thompson are very hawkish. The fact is that McCain was never really liked in the Republican party. His run against Bush was never forgiven. Mainstream Republicans for some odd reason react like you mentioned the devil when you mention McCain. They think McCain is a liberal for some odd reason.

Oops, Jay you did report it. But I guess the headline "US warns of summer terrorist attack" was a hohum on 'poll day'. But "Chertoff's gut feeling" was an attention getter.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1641946,00.html

McCain is just another short fascist.

As a member of the Liberal Left that McCain despises, and blames for Republican incompetence, I'm laughing and rejoicing at the little dictator's demise.

I am glad Mccain is gone so we can be the ones to take credit for granting amnesty to our immigrant brothers and sisters and capture their votes for the DNC!

You people are making too much out of nothing. So Mccain is having staff & money problems. He was not getting the nomination anyway. He was fading. It's summertime & the media needs something to write about. So they make a mountain out of a molehill. Outside the beltway, no one cares who is working for the people running for president.

Hillary!
Hillary!

I think McCain's base (aka the media) has transferred their biased affections to Thompson and Giuliani. Although McCain still gets relatively deferential coverage, at least relative to the Democrats and -- interestingly -- Romney. I'm curious as to the psychology that the press seems to treat Romney -- merits be damned -- as a punching bag, along with the Democrats (though not quite at the same level).

McCain's problem with Iraq is not just the unpopularity with the war. It's also that many (in the public, though not the media) doubt his sincerity on the issue. Just look at his many falsely rosy public statements, e.g. with regards to his Baghdad stroll.

"The press often -- and the public occasionally -- rewards politicians who go against the grain."

That is a crock, Jay. There is very little support for your claim that the press rewards politicians who go against the grain.

When it's the elite press' grain being threatened, you guys jump on that transgressor like flies on a rotting corpse.

Edwards anyone? Here is the elite press' foolish paradigm: If you are yourself wealthy and get expensive haircuts and make money as a trial lawyer, you are a hypocrite if you advocate for less fortunate people. You guys don't even understand the meaning of the word "hypocrisy" since you think it applies in that situation.

Don't tell us you reward the outliers. That's a lie.

>The coverage changed, I think, almost entirely because of Iraq.

Mr. Carney,
I think the coverage changed almost entirely because of his photo-op walkabout in an Iraqi marketplace surrounded by a heavily-armed, heavily-armored phalanx of US proving his comments of a few days earlier about Iraq being so safe and peaceful to be a lie.

When one photo shows such contrast, even the MSM clues in.

What Nash said. If the press "reward[ed] politicians who go against the grain", they would reward wealthy politicians who advocated policies that favor the less wealthy at the expense of the wealthy. But the opposite is the case.

Am I still banned?

More MSM spin. Amnesty killed McCain. The MSM hate Iraq & love amnesty, and they have an anti-war agenda that makes it convenient to blame Iraq. But McCain is imploding precisely because the people most supportive of Bush on Iraq absolutely despise McCain for his treachery on amnesty, his treachery on incumbent protection (aka "campaign finance reform") and his betrayal on the Gang of 14 ending phony "filibusters" on judges. The beautiful irony is that his betrayal with the gang of 14 set up the new requirement for 61 votes for any legislation to pass, which in turn killed his amnesty plan, and set him up like a golf ball on a tee the get whacked. Don't'cha just love it?

McCain was good copy so he got lots of coverage in the press. Even more important he was always available and candid. Once he became the 'FRONT RUNNER' he became much more cautious and this probably cost him some exposure but that's not the real source of his problems. His difficulties stem from his relationship with the different voting blocs in the country. He was alway anathema to the nativist, religious crowd on the right of the party. Conversely as the nominee he would have attracted a lot of cross party support because he was widely admired by independants and a lot of democrats. The problem is that the nativists and religious crowd are essentially in control of the Republican party today so he had to tack towards them to have any chance of winning the nod. So he tacked towards them and this involved eating a lot of humble pie which completely destroyed him with the independants and soft democrats. Then he committed suicide with the nativists by backing the immigration bill which they hated with a passion. He probably calculated that his staunch support of the war would keep him in good standing with these folks but it didn't becasue all the other candidates are supporting the war so there are plenty of options. Given that two thirds of the country, for which read democrats/independants/soft republicans, has swung hard against the war, from where does McCain get his votes. The odds are he's blown it by some massive strategic miscalculations. The way the campaign has been managed also says something about his management skills and what it say aint good particularly since competence is likely to be high on the list of requirements for the next president. Add in the negatives that were always there like his age, and I think he's probably done.

To claim that McCain is insincere about his opinion of the war in Iraq reveals Jay Carney's contempt for the Republican Party.

The fact is the "Surge" just started. The additional troops just arrived some weeks ago. It may fail. But it has not had time.

This is the primary season. The opinions of Republicans are the opinions that matter for McCain at this point. So how does Jay Carney attribute "McCain's Real Problem" to something other than his advocacy for immigration reform?

How revealing.

LOL - who cares what the media thinks of McCain. He's a Republican that time and again has defied the base. If the media were 100% behind him he still wouldn't have a chance of earning the nomination. Sounds like some self important hyping from Time to me.

McCain was loved by the media because he crapped on Republicans and thwarted the President's agenda on many issues. He was becoming detested by the Republican base for exactly the same things, and then he got in bed with Teddy and tried to shove amnesty down our throats. That's why he's toast now.

His position on the war is his only saving grace with the base. People who think the media reflect the attitudes of most in this country are generally those who want it to be so. The media is a political enemy of the United States, not its gaurdian. We know who our guardians are, and they don't work at the Times!

Jay Carney's article implies that the reason John McCain is dropping like a stone in the polls is a result of "The Media's" disenchantment with him. This reminds me of the rooster who thinks his crowing makes the sun rise each morning. No, the reason McCain is going nowhere is because grass roots Republicans are through with him because of McCain-Finegold and his immigration stance. It is not always about the media.

David (above) is completely correct. McCain never really had a chance imo, the victim of last year's immigration bill (Kennedy McCain) and his support of this years amnesty bill.

He is in fact a standup and straight-thinking guy on Iraq. I heard him last night on C-span, fresh off his recent trip, putting it to the surrender crowd in no uncertain terms. Giuliani's future SecDef. Or Thompson's.

"This fight is about Iraq, but it is not about Iraq alone," McCain sai. "It's greater than that and, more importantly, about whether America still has the political courage to fight for victory or whether we will settle for defeat and all the terrible things that accompany it."

"I've seen this movie before from the liberal left in America", he said.

Just right.

Two points.

1 - McCain's stand on Iraq is why the media soured on him, yes. That 'the media' has been anti-bush and anti-war is nothing new.

This is not, however, why the McCain campaign is floundering. If it were, then we'd see Guiliani, Romney and Thompson campaigns (announced and unannounced) floundering in popularity as well. But... they are not.

So what's the *real* reason McCain is dying as a candidate?

2 - Immigration reform. Partnering with Teddy Kennedy and Bush on an issue that blatantly bucked the GOP base killed McCain's campaign. Period.

McCain's problem with Republicans (isn't he running for the GOP nomination?) starts and stops with immigration. GOP voters like candidates with whom the "media" have parted ways with. Who was McCain's main ally on immigration? Teddy. Who would be his running mate, Kerry?

I thought the media was supposed to be objective? How can an objective media "turn" on anyone?

This liberal moron Carney spilled the beans.

McCain never missed an opportunity to undercut the Bush administration when given a chance. The only people who thought he would win the primary are the liberals in the media who considered him a maverick when he moved left.

They don't consider Lieberman a maverick because he shifted right...that doesn't jive with their thinking.

The elite media is so out of touch with anyone other than NYC elites that they have become irrelevent....see the NY Times shrinking readership for proof.

If the media keeps pounding away at McCain for not being liberal enough, he may just win the nomination.

McCain is now in this mode:
"Can't we all just get along and pull together as a nation over Iraq, even you leftie loonies who are traitors and appeasers to terrorists?"

I'm a New Hampshire Independent and, as I keep telling the GOP here, every time anyone in the Republicant Party blames "the Democrats" for wanting out of Iraq, they show how completely out of touch with moderates and Independents they have become.

John McCain is out of touch with Independents, and he wouldn't have had a snowball's chance in hell of winning that NH primary without us. This is what he looks like without Independents supporting him.

Yeah, the press coverage changed over Iraq, BUT, the Republican base hasn't been in McCain's corner for years, if ever. He had support from the media, but not from the party regulars. The Real Problem is that Jay Carney and his cronies don't really know what is going on with most of the country. TIME is so last century.

This article states that it was McCain's wanting to win the war which killed him. Have we come so far in this country that anyone who wants to WIN a war is despised by their own countrymen!? The truth though, is that AMNESTY killed McCain, and Amnesty alone. The media are simply using the war to futher their agenda of defeat in Iraq.

Mark: Why didn't your post include the phrase "defeatocrats?" That one always cracks me up.

But -- yes -- you've sussed us. We want to be defeated and to be subjugated by our Islamic masters.

It's obviously because we hate America.

When you're right, you're right.

This is the stuff that made me let my subscription lapse.

Why pay to have some twit proclaim the "biggest foreign policy fiasco ... since the dawn of the Republic" for no other reason that a few thousand hopeless terrorists carbomb iraqi civilians out of spite, because they are impotent to even cause serious casualties on american forces, much less reverse their victory and the occupation.

I know you media people are clueless, but why not try thinking about the standard of victory your hectoring will create for the future: THE ONE WHO KILLS MORE CIVILIANS WINS.

Gee, Jay, have an inflated opinion of yourself or anything?

Oh, and what happened to "objective journalism", Jay?

You idiots are funny. You really do not see that you have zero credibility.

Fantastic ！！！Thanx，
We got the best m4v converter to convert m4v
A good helper with your converting…..m4v to avi m4v to wmv
Ultra QuickTime m4v to mpeg Converter is a powerful tool to help you convert，
fromm4v to mp4 and to many other formats。