The McCainiac media at work.
The off-year elections are over. The 2008 primaries are only 26 months away, and a Beltway op-ed columnist's thoughts turn lightly to thoughts of love. Scouting around for his Perfect Pol -- one who will naturally lead a mythical centrist "party of performance" -- the WaPo's David Ignatius' heart begins to go all aflutter at the recollection of a certain name. He finds himself drawn by that age-old song of songs, back to his roots in a land of milk and honey before a man named Karl Rove descended with push-polls on South Carolina and crushed the Washington Press Corps' favourite fantasy:
If my imaginary party of performance held a convention this week, its most likely nominee for president would be Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain. Over the past few years, he has been the most visible example of a politician who has tried to swim against the tide of partisanship.
"I think the pendulum has swung as far as it's going to, and it will now swing back," McCain told me last week. The reason for the shift, argues McCain, is survival instinct. Candidates know the public is fed up with divisive politics. "They want to see us unify. They don't want to see us fighting. They don't like the bitter partisanship," he insisted.
I haven't read The Cycles of American History, but doesn't the theory of the pendulum swing have politics swinging in 30-year cycles between progressivism and conservatism rather than, say, between "divisive politics" and some sort of bipartisan concensus? That's not the sort of thing McCain wants to be avocating if he's going to win the GOP primary.
Ignatius ends what reads to me like a paean to centrist one-party rule (he ought to read some Canadian blogs) by repeating a common mistake: that Bush panders to his conservative base. Actually, I think Jon Chait has the argument right: Bush really panders to his corporate base. The "conservative" base -- the rural, religious right -- usually gets "hosed" in the end. I have little positive to say about Bush, but I don't honestly believe he much cared for the constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Meanwhile, via the Note, a new WSJ/NBC 2008 poll gives the McCainiac Media more reasons to smile. The WSJ's John Harwood reports:
The former First Lady draws 41% among Democrats to 14% for Edwards; Kerry receives 10%, Biden 5%, Clark 4%. Mavericks Giuliani and McCain lead Republican field with 34% and 31%, respectively, while Frist, Romney and Allen draw 5% or less.
Topping those ruled out: 17% of Democrats definitely won't back Gore, while 21% of Republicans say that about Gingrich. General-election trial heats show Frist, after missteps as Senate Majority Leader, would lose handily to Clinton or Kerry. McCain shows greater electability, which could boost his prospects among conservatives who battled him in 2000.
McCain routs Kerry by 53% to 35%, and edges Clinton 44% to 42%.
All's right with the world! The voters flatly reject the two party's most high-profile partisans! The center holds! Here are the poll results in question. Nothing Harwood writes here is technically inaccurate, and without a WSJ subscription, it's unfair to trash the whole article based on one excerpt. Nevertheless, I think I detect that traditional McCainiac slant creeping in. For starters, notice what Harwood leaves out -- the fact that 19% of Republican respondants also "definitely won't" support McCain's primary bid. It ain't just those partisan Ataris the voters don't like. The "mavericks" also have a finite appeal.
Actually, 19%-definite-no isn't really a bad result for McCain at all (I would have expected the number to be closer to 30% given the establishment right's disdain for McCain). And it shouldn't be a bad result for his admirers either other than that it breaks the "party of performance" narrative by suggesting that a significant number of voters are unimpressed by party-bucking "mavericks". Maybe that's even what Harwood means when he praises McCain's "greater electability". Otherwise, the question is: electability relative to what? If you go all the way back and use December of 1999 as your reference point, then McCain is in fact doing slightly better in terms of electability. Back then, he was mainly losing hypothetical match-ups with Gore while Bush was winning them. But relative to one month ago, when a WNBC/Marist poll found McCain beating HRC by 9 points, he's not doing so hot.
I will say this for McCain: he knows who his natural constituency is. With McCain as the Republican nominee, Bernie Goldberg will be flat out of business. And that, at least, is a good thing. But the Washington media's overt, never-ending infatuation with this press-friendly hard-right Republican is extremely tiring (just like it was the last time McCain ran for president), especially given the tangible problem it's going to cause for whatever hapless, comparably unloved Democrat has to go up against him and his editorial-writing admirers.
If my imaginary party of performance held a convention this week, its most likely nominee for president would be Arizona Republican Sen. John McCain. Over the past few years, he has been the most visible example of a politician who has tried to swim against the tide of partisanship.
"I think the pendulum has swung as far as it's going to, and it will now swing back," McCain told me last week. The reason for the shift, argues McCain, is survival instinct. Candidates know the public is fed up with divisive politics. "They want to see us unify. They don't want to see us fighting. They don't like the bitter partisanship," he insisted.
I haven't read The Cycles of American History, but doesn't the theory of the pendulum swing have politics swinging in 30-year cycles between progressivism and conservatism rather than, say, between "divisive politics" and some sort of bipartisan concensus? That's not the sort of thing McCain wants to be avocating if he's going to win the GOP primary.
Ignatius ends what reads to me like a paean to centrist one-party rule (he ought to read some Canadian blogs) by repeating a common mistake: that Bush panders to his conservative base. Actually, I think Jon Chait has the argument right: Bush really panders to his corporate base. The "conservative" base -- the rural, religious right -- usually gets "hosed" in the end. I have little positive to say about Bush, but I don't honestly believe he much cared for the constitutional ban on gay marriage.
Meanwhile, via the Note, a new WSJ/NBC 2008 poll gives the McCainiac Media more reasons to smile. The WSJ's John Harwood reports:
The former First Lady draws 41% among Democrats to 14% for Edwards; Kerry receives 10%, Biden 5%, Clark 4%. Mavericks Giuliani and McCain lead Republican field with 34% and 31%, respectively, while Frist, Romney and Allen draw 5% or less.
Topping those ruled out: 17% of Democrats definitely won't back Gore, while 21% of Republicans say that about Gingrich. General-election trial heats show Frist, after missteps as Senate Majority Leader, would lose handily to Clinton or Kerry. McCain shows greater electability, which could boost his prospects among conservatives who battled him in 2000.
McCain routs Kerry by 53% to 35%, and edges Clinton 44% to 42%.
All's right with the world! The voters flatly reject the two party's most high-profile partisans! The center holds! Here are the poll results in question. Nothing Harwood writes here is technically inaccurate, and without a WSJ subscription, it's unfair to trash the whole article based on one excerpt. Nevertheless, I think I detect that traditional McCainiac slant creeping in. For starters, notice what Harwood leaves out -- the fact that 19% of Republican respondants also "definitely won't" support McCain's primary bid. It ain't just those partisan Ataris the voters don't like. The "mavericks" also have a finite appeal.
Actually, 19%-definite-no isn't really a bad result for McCain at all (I would have expected the number to be closer to 30% given the establishment right's disdain for McCain). And it shouldn't be a bad result for his admirers either other than that it breaks the "party of performance" narrative by suggesting that a significant number of voters are unimpressed by party-bucking "mavericks". Maybe that's even what Harwood means when he praises McCain's "greater electability". Otherwise, the question is: electability relative to what? If you go all the way back and use December of 1999 as your reference point, then McCain is in fact doing slightly better in terms of electability. Back then, he was mainly losing hypothetical match-ups with Gore while Bush was winning them. But relative to one month ago, when a WNBC/Marist poll found McCain beating HRC by 9 points, he's not doing so hot.
I will say this for McCain: he knows who his natural constituency is. With McCain as the Republican nominee, Bernie Goldberg will be flat out of business. And that, at least, is a good thing. But the Washington media's overt, never-ending infatuation with this press-friendly hard-right Republican is extremely tiring (just like it was the last time McCain ran for president), especially given the tangible problem it's going to cause for whatever hapless, comparably unloved Democrat has to go up against him and his editorial-writing admirers.
1 Comments:
2 comments:
1. I agree with you that Bush ignores the religious right and panders to his corporate base. I wanted to add: because there is no money in the religious right's agenda. Go down the list: abortion, gay marriage, prayer in the schools, creationism, etc. There is no way for anyone to make money on those issues. On most of them, money isn't even part of the equation.
2. I disagree with you about McCain. I think he will appeal strongly to military people, fiscal conservatives, corporate types, and moderate Republicans. I don't think he'll need the religious right. And I think he will choose Christine Whitman as his running mate, which will be a solid response to the Dems if Hillary wins the nomination.
Post a Comment
<< Home