Matt Welch Helps McCain Fans Extract Heads From Asses
McCain is the snake charmer candidate, and is working magic especially on all the people who are voting, well, not for character but for appearance of character. Those considering voting for McCain should read Matt Welch's terrific book, McCain: The Myth of a Maverick, which details how "The Straight Talk Express" is anything but.
In the LA Times, new Reason editor-in-chief Matt Welch shows, once again, how the myth of McCain carries the day, and people believe exactly the opposite about him that is the truth -- that he's anti-war when he's more hawkish than Bush:
It's no mystery why independents gravitate toward McCain. He's a country-first, party-second kind of guy who speaks bluntly and delights in poking fellow Republicans in the eye on issues such as campaign finance reform and global warming.But there's a bizarre disconnect in the warm embrace between McCain and the electorate's mavericks. They hate the Iraq war, while he's willing to fight it for another century. The most pro-war presidential candidate in a decade is winning the 2008 GOP nomination thanks to the antiwar vote.
A full 66% of independents think that the U.S. should completely withdraw from Iraq no later than 12 months from now, according to a Jan. 18-22 L.A. Times/Bloomberg poll. McCain, meanwhile, said last month that the U.S. might stay in Baghdad for another 100 years. He continually expresses bafflement at the idea that that might not be such a good thing. "It's not the point! It's not the point!" he snarled at reporters recently. "How long are we going to be in Korea?"
And yet he dominated the antiwar vote in New Hampshire, with 44% to Romney's 19%, according to CNN exit polls. Ron Paul, the only actual antiwar Republican running, drew just 16% of voters who said they were against the war. The three finished in the same order among antiwar voters in Michigan, even though Romney won the state overall.
The same pattern holds true in the case of voters who despise George W. Bush. In Florida, for example, McCain clobbered Romney 48% to 18% among those who described themselves as "angry" at the president, according to MSNBC exit polls.
So the voters most hostile to the war are backing a potential commander in chief who makes Bush look gun-shy. More than three years before the Bush administration elucidated the radical doctrine of preemptive war, McCain unveiled a plan during his first run at the presidency called "rogue-state rollback," in which "we politically and materially support indigenous forces within and outside of rogue states" -- including Iraq, North Korea and Serbia -- "to overthrow regimes that threaten our interests and values." And if the "odious regimes" crack down on freedom fighters, the U.S. should respond with force. In that campaign, McCain was the neocons' choice against the more internationally "humble" George Bush.
...Still, too many people, wowed by the candidate's considerable charm, have convinced themselves that launching wars is for icky people like that Bush fellow, not Our John. "He knows war," the Des Moines Register wrote, in one of roughly 17,000 newspaper endorsements of McCain over the last two months, "something we believe would make him reluctant to start one." For Californians tempted by such delusions, it's wise to recall the famous words of the last septuagenarian to successfully seek the presidency: Trust, but verify.
Ann Coulter, looking at McCainian conservatism, calls Hillary "our girl."
Here's another LA Times piece by Matt on how "the former POW is not as thoughtful as advertised about the lessons of Vietnam":
I recently obtained a copy of McCain's essay through a Freedom of Information Act request. And, quite unlike the senator's own descriptions of his nine-month course ("to study why and how my country had fought in Vietnam"), the paper isn't actually about any of that. It's instead a relatively technical assessment of how the military's post-Korean War changes to the Code of Conduct for POWs played out on the ground in Vietnam.
More from Matt on the crookedness of the "straight talk" here, in the LA Weekly:
Here's the funny thing about independent voters: They still love John McCain, think he's a straight talker. No matter how many times he claims to run a positive-only campaign on the same day he releases an attack ad; no matter how many ways he violates the spirit of his own campaign-finance legislation (do yourself a favor and Google "The Reform Institute"); no matter how unconvincingly he stammers his way through wanting to make permanent the same tax cuts he eviscerated in 2001 and 2003; no matter how inaccurately he slimes Romney and others for insufficient support of "our troops"; no matter how many immigration bills bearing his name he now opposes; and no matter how many times he confesses to manipulative, ambition-driven lies in his own damned books, independents still come out for their maverick — 42 percent of them in open-primary South Carolina, and 39 percent in New Hampshire....As a direct result of his long media honeymoon, much of what we think we know about McCain is wrong.
As Matt points out in his book, it's not straight talk, it's straight access -- the fact that McCain is the candidate most willing to talk to the media -- that gives McCain his reputation of being a truth teller, along with all the other McCain-serving myths about the man.
Personally, I think Obama has a very good chance of becoming our next president, not because of what he stands for, but because everyone is so utterly sick of the oiliness of all the rest, and he's only one who seems "inspiring." Am I saying that, in this country, we don't vote for character but for appearance of character? Well, pretty much, yes. Will McCain beat him or come in a close second for that reason? Probably.
"Am I saying that, in this country, we don't vote for character but for appearance of character? Well, pretty much, yes."
EXACTLY. You'd think we'd learn from the last time around -- the main reason I heard for voting for Bush was that "he's the guy I'd like to have a beer with." That's not good enough for me. I have problems with each of the candidates, but I'm not going to vote for someone just because they have the prettiest surface. I want to get to what's underneath as best I can. The thing that worries me about Obama is that I haven't been able to figure that out -- he doesn't have much of a record yet, and (I think deliberately) is not saying much of substance. As Amy says, that will definitely get him the votes of those who decide they hate everyone else. But for me, I'm not so sure about what happens if we elect him. I personally think the country (maybe the world) is on its way to a major crisis, and I want to throw my vote at the man/woman who will be best able to contend with the current mess. Obama is going to have to do more than look pretty to convince me.
I have a problem with all of the candidates in one way or another, some more than others. My own plan is to figure out which of them is the most likely to be the most effective on the issues that are most important to me, even if the candidate irritates the crap out of me (which I think is pretty much inevitable). It was easy to eliminate Huckabee, but I'm keeping an open mind on the rest. I don't need to like everything they say or do, or have said and done in the past, as long as I think they'll make some headway going forward on the issues I care most about (the economy, the Iraq war, and the environment), and won't do anything completely idiotic like amend the Constitution to meet God's standards.
Gail at February 2, 2008 7:54 AM
McCain is no conservative. However, neither is President Bush. Obama and Hillary are leftists. McCain is good on the war. I voted for him in the primary for that reason only. We are in a global battle of civilization vs. barbarism. Now is not the time to hold Republican candidates up to some ideological litmus test. There is too much at stake.
Obama and/or Hillary would be a disaster on the war. What if we had listened to them 8 months ago? We would have cut and run in Iraq. Things are going much better in Iraq now. That's because of President Bush's resoluteness and conviction. Like him or not, President Bush has turned the tide in Iraq. We are winning. McCain will finish the job.
Tom at February 2, 2008 10:09 AM
McCain is a snake. The Reform Institute was one of those groups funded mainly by socialist George Soros who hates this country just about as much as anyone can. He has been using his billions to try to sink the dollar, (Which GWB seems to be helping him with), and influence our elections. Soros pushed McCain to push a campaign finance law that created 527’s which opened the door for Soros to pour even more money into our elections. And look who seem to be benefiting from that.
The reason ‘independents’ have been going for McCain even though he is at odds with their biggest issue, the war, is because they are voting for the guy they know cannot win. You can catch parts of this conversation on KOS and the Demo Underground. This is a somewhat coordinated movement. As soon as he gets the nomination, the press will turn on him like a Johnny Carson wife. He will start sinking like a rock in the polls, (already started actually), and lose horribly in november. That would give them either Obama or Hill for pres which is what they really want and they believe this would get us out of the war. Many of those people who have been voting claiming independent are actually crossover dems voting to screw the GOP with a candidate even they won’t vote for.
I read a line on a blog recently where someone said, “John McCain on a debate stage next to Obama is going to look like Mickey Rooney debating Denzel Washington.” That sums it right there folks. Future, meet past. Anybody who thinks that McCain is going to win an election with the dems all pumped up and half his own party threatening to vote against him is dumber than a football bat!
McCain = Mondale v2.0
Bikerken at February 2, 2008 10:14 AM
Repeated: What does being a POW have to do with being President? What does the candidate's voting record say about what they are saying now? See thomas.loc.gov for that answer. Why would a person claim they will do things as President that they are not doing as a Senator - when they have the express Constitutional duty as such, and they won't as President?
The American public doesn't want the Constitution to apply - they want things to go in favor of them, all the time. That's why we have to choose between evils.
If you are in a position to do so, ask these people who will staff their Cabinet. That's more important than the second-hand opinions of talking heads, whose breath and brains seem to run out after saying, "Who will win?"
Radwaste at February 2, 2008 2:29 PM
Good points Rad, we do always want things that sometimes we just aren't entitled to. Where the hell in the constitution does it talk about "Free health care?"
As far as cabinets go, have you seen that Juan Hernandez guy on McCains staff, he is that smarmy little Mexican prick on tv all the time who doesnt' believe our border is legitamate. He believes there should be no border restrictions on crossing or trade or anything. Image him the head of DHS.
Bikerken at February 2, 2008 2:53 PM
Next to Hillary, anyone looks good ... .
Jay R at February 2, 2008 9:35 PM
"that smarmy little Mexican prick"
Seriously?
c'mon (2) at February 3, 2008 12:14 AM
What Jay R said
Crid at February 3, 2008 12:14 AM
Very fitting description c'mon. Go to Youtube and pull up some of his videos telling Americans they have no right to keep mexicans out. He is a believer in Aztlan and a member of MeCHa, and a dual US/mexican citizen who worked for Vicente Fox as in a job to facilitate sending more mexicans to the US illegally. He smiles on tv and alway calls you "my friend" when you know damned well he isn't a friend of anybody who believes in protecting US borders. He is being partially paid by socialists George Soros who is doing anything he can to tear down the US.
Let me tell you right now c'mon, I have seen your type on the web before, you will laugh your ass off all night at Carlos Mencia and then feign great offense if anybody says anything in the least way to offend someone you approve of. Then you get into these stupid blog arguments back and forth. Let's cut to the chase, I don't give a rat's bloody ass if that description of this smarmy prick offends you! OK, Ya got that? Wanna bitch about it? Talk to the finger.
Bikerken at February 3, 2008 2:03 AM
SUCK IT UP AMERICA RON PAUL 2008
benjamin bridger at February 3, 2008 7:33 AM
Tom writes:
Newsflash, Tom. The war in Iraq is already a disaster. Hillary or Obama couldn't make it worse. The war in Iraq was started for one reason and one reason only: so the cronyists like Halliburton could make money. It was designed to help the already rich and nothing else.
People often ask me rather theatrically a question to this effect: "Do you really think that President Bush would start a war, place our soldiers at risk, killing thousands of them, injuring and maiming tens of thousands more, killing tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians, displacing millions more...just so Halliburton can make a buck?
To which I reply without hesistation, "Yes."
To the narcissist-in-chief, you are not people. People are the rich. The non-rich are tools (in both senses of the term).
Don't think so? Remember this charming assessment from Barbara Bush, the president's mother?
Which pretty much sums up the attitude of the whole family. The non-rich don't have things like jobs, pets, families, keepsakes, homes and neighborhoods they were attached to. No, no. Only the rich have those things. The poor are easy. Just herd them into a stadium, give them a cot to sleep on, feed them and it "works very well for them."
Of course, the apple never falls far from the tree. Remember Bush's conversation with single mother in her fifties, working three jobs with a mentally-challenged son. Why her situation was "fantastic" according to the president. And her heroic efforts at maintaining three jobs were "uniquely American." (How would he know? He's never held one job in his life, let alone three at the same time.)
MS. MORNIN: I'm fine.
THE PRESIDENT: Good. Okay, Mary, tell us about yourself.
MS. MORNIN: Okay, I'm a divorced, single mother with three grown, adult children. I have one child, Robbie, who is mentally challenged, and I have two daughters.
THE PRESIDENT: Fantastic. First of all, you've got the hardest job in America, being a single mom.
MS. MORNIN: Thank you. (Applause.)
THE PRESIDENT: You and I are baby boomers.
MS. MORNIN: Yes, and I am concerned about -- that the system stays the same for me.
THE PRESIDENT: Right.
MS. MORNIN: But I do want to see change and reform for my children because I realize that we will be in trouble down the road.
THE PRESIDENT: It's an interesting point, and I hear this a lot -- will the system be the same for me? And the answer is, absolutely. One of the things we have to continue to clarify to people who have retired or near retirement -- you fall in the near retirement.
MS. MORNIN: Yes, unfortunately, yes. (Laughter.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I don't know. I'm not going to tell your age, but you're one year younger than me, and I'm just getting started. (Laughter.)
MS. MORNIN: Okay, okay.
THE PRESIDENT: I feel great, don't you?
MS. MORNIN: Yes, I do.
THE PRESIDENT: I remember when I turned 50, I used to think 50 was really old. Now I think it's young, and getting ready to turn 60 here in a couple of years, and I still feel young. I mean, we are living longer, and people are working longer, and the truth of the matter is, elderly baby boomers have got a lot to offer to our society, and we shouldn't think about giving up our responsibilities in society. (Applause.) Isn't that right?
MS. MORNIN: That's right.
THE PRESIDENT: Yes, but nevertheless, there's a certain comfort to know that the promises made will be kept by the government.
MS. MORNIN: Yes.
THE PRESIDENT: And so thank you for asking that. You don't have to worry.
MS. MORNIN: That's good, because I work three jobs and I feel like I contribute.
THE PRESIDENT: You work three jobs?
MS. MORNIN: Three jobs, yes.
THE PRESIDENT: Uniquely American, isn't it? I mean, that is fantastic that you're doing that. (Applause.) Get any sleep? (Laughter.)
MS. MORNIN: Not much. Not much.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, hopefully, this will help you get you sleep to know that when we talk about Social Security, nothing changes.
MS. MORNIN: Okay, thank you.
THE PRESIDENT: That's great.
Patrick at February 4, 2008 1:38 AM
I think I'm gonna have to abstain this election. So far, Obama is the only possible and I'm just not sure about him. If Hilary is the Democratic candidate and there's no third party that interest me, I'll be abstaining for sure.
Boy, Patrick, that interview you posted. I remember that big show but we needed reminding. He just about told her work until it kills you, old lady, or you're just not being responsible. Geesh.
Donna at February 4, 2008 11:09 AM
Leave a comment