Media Breaks Up With McCain

Yesterday I wrote about how former media darling John McCain no longer cares what his friends in the press say or write about him.

"We're running a campaign to win," McCain aide Brian Rogers said last week, explaining his campaign's increasingly dishonest attacks. "And we're not too concerned about what the media filter tries to say about it."

Now the "media filter" is hitting back. Washington Post columnist and onetime McCain booster David Ignatius wrote a scathing column on Sunday about the Arizona Senator entitled "Stopping at Nothing To Win."

Wrote Ignatius:

Thinking about the Palin choice, you begin to ponder other moves McCain has made on the road to winning the Republican nomination. McCain was right a few years ago to warn that Bush's tax cuts would have potentially ruinous fiscal consequences; now he favors extending the cuts that have produced a crisis of debt and deficit. Why did he switch his position, other than political opportunism?

McCain even seems to have forgotten what saved his greatest legislative achievement, which is campaign finance reform. When he was asked during the Saddleback Church debate which Supreme Court justices he would not have nominated, he named Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, David Souter and John Paul Stevens. It happens that those are four of the five justices who voted in 2003 to uphold the McCain-Feingold law.

In May 2006, after McCain had courted the Rev. Jerry Falwell in an effort to win conservative support, I asked him if he was bending his principles for the sake of winning. "I don't want it that badly," McCain answered. "I will continue to do what is right. . . . If that means I can't get the Republican nomination, fine. I've had a happy life. The worst thing I can do is sell my soul to the devil."

He was right.

Fellow Post columnist Richard Cohen--another onetime McCain ally--unveiled his contribution to the anti-McCain archive today, entitled "The Ugly New McCain."

Writes Cohen:

I am one of the journalists accused over the years of being in the tank for McCain. Guilty. Those doing the accusing usually attributed my feelings to McCain being accessible. This is the journalist-as-puppy school of thought: Give us a treat, and we will leap into a politician's lap.

Not so. What impressed me most about McCain was the effect he had on his audiences, particularly young people. When he talked about service to a cause greater than oneself, he struck a chord. He expressed his message in words, but he packaged it in the McCain story -- that man, beaten to a pulp, who chose honor over freedom. This had nothing to do with access. It had to do with integrity.

McCain has soiled all that. His opportunistic and irresponsible choice of Sarah Palin as his political heir -- the person in whose hands he would leave the country -- is a form of personal treason, a betrayal of all he once stood for. Palin, no matter what her other attributes, is shockingly unprepared to become president. McCain knows that. He means to win, which is all right; he means to win at all costs, which is not.

And last night, Chris Matthews did an unforgettable interview with McCain economic adviser (and oil industry lobbyist) Nancy Pfotenhauer, linking Pfotenhauer to failed Republican policies. Under repeated questioning, Pfotenhauer wouldn't even say who she voted for in 2004. "I've never heard anything like this!" Matthews exclaimed.

A must watch clip. It was Matthews, after all, who said in 2006: "The press loves McCain. We're his base."

Comments (37)

1. Well, obvious David Ignatius and Richard Cohen are radical Marxists who hate women and want the terrorists to win!

   (heheh)

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 10:51am

2. LOL MASK I am really enjoying your commentary as of late. While I know we disagree on a number of fundamental issues, it's still reassuring that you're being even-handed. Cheers.

   Posted by jorcheim at 09/16/2008 @ 11:02am

3. Matthews nailed the GOP in that interview.

   Now it's the Dems' job to do the same, while offering sober, credible alternatives.

   The McCain argument that his GOP is an alternative to the Bush GOP is an insult to too many brains.

   Those debates will be some show. Obama & Biden have a tough balancing act, debating cripples, they can't look as if they're kicking cripples, yet they must appear convincingly strong.

   Posted by sloper at 09/16/2008 @ 11:14am

4. Not too much of a trend when the #1 cable news channel is all McCain/Palin, 24/7 until the election.

   Posted by MyParadigm at 09/16/2008 @ 11:23am

5. Now, as much Happy and Jom will come on here and say "This is why the media are going under because people don't care", I do agree with them, but the media isn't under yet. They still levy A LOT of influence. Happy and Jom will say that it's the media who is the reason for the low ratings in Iraq because they are sending a skewed message. Well they still have influence. They can still throw their weight around. If you piss them off you will be bitten. I think McCain is unwise to anger major media sources.

   Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2008 @ 11:54am

6. Posted by jorcheim at 09/16/2008 @ 11:02am

   Actually in the above case, it's easy if you've been around long enough....

   you just channel RIO/RED RIVER.

   He's actually about the 8th Circle of Right-Wing Post Hell. Ninth Circle is the various incarnations of "LIBBSUCK/LIBZWHATEVER".

   7th Circle (move back out from RIO) is LVLIB. 6th is PONTI and CHIP. 5th is HAPPY. 4th is MAASCH/JOMAMA and Australian LRJONES. 3rd is DarinTT/MARYBRET. 2nd is FREIHEIT. Not sure about the 1st Circle.

   Did I miss anybody?

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 11:55am

7. I think it would be THRAWN, who's by far the most reasonable of them, and who actually seems to have occasional interest in truth as opposed to persuasion/antagonism by any means.

   But don't forget john lowell for his own special scatological level...

   Posted by TouchMeNot at 09/16/2008 @ 12:02pm

8. Gotta stop watching cable news. Is there a 12 step program for that? It is maddening and truly represents the definition of insanity, "doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result." All the major networks are owned by corporations like General Electric. They are currently pulling out all the stops to get McCain/Palin elected without being to obvious. Where is the mythical "Left Wing Media" I keep hearing about?

   It's a good thing Obama has had success in fund raising, he is going to need it. Im happy to see the democratic 527 ads hitting the airwaves. Maybe that will help. As for me, I think I need a vacation..

   Posted by chaoszen at 09/16/2008 @ 12:10pm

9. Posted by TouchMeNot at 09/16/2008 @ 12:02pm

   john lowell is not from Dante....he's more like Brad Pitt in "Twelve Monkeys"!

   heheh

   Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 12:13pm

10. McSame is giving a speech on the economy as I write this. He is giving the impression that he is surprised and outraged at the shenanigans of evil wallstreet. Like he just came down from the mountain to find a nasty mess that only he can clean up. Some of the rhetoric even sounds like a democratic speech. He is shoveling out so much crap im getting my hip boots on. And the crowd just howls with approval as they are getting it from behind. It's amazing to watch this fraud selling his snake oil. Unreal.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/16/2008 @ 12:24pm

11. Speaking of bad press....this just in-

    JOHN MCCAIN INVENTED THE 'BLACKBERRY'!

    MIAMI (AP) -- Move over, Al Gore. You may lay claim to the Internet, but John McCain helped create the BlackBerry.

    At least that's the contention of a top McCain policy adviser, Douglas Holtz-Eakin. Waving his BlackBerry personal digital assistant and citing McCain's work as a senator, he told reporters Tuesday, "You're looking at the miracle that John McCain helped create."

    McCain has acknowledged that he doesn't know how to use a computer and can't send e-mail, one of the BlackBerry's prime functions.

    Holtz-Eakin's argument is similar to one advanced by Gore, the Democratic presidential nominee in 2000. Gore once boasted about "taking the initiative to create the Internet" through technological and educational policies. He later was mocked for claiming to have invented the Internet, although he never made such a claim.

    Holtz-Eakin, former director of the Congressional Budget Office, said McCain's service on and leadership of the Senate Commerce Committee put him at the intersection of a number of economic interests, including the telecommunications industry.

    The Arizona senator's handling of regulation and deregulation of that industry in particular left him with the skills to help revive the economy amid a mortgage crisis, an energy crisis and a Wall Street meltdown, the adviser said.

    "He can and has the judgment to put people in place with technical expertise, with the history of experience in the areas necessary, that we're going to get reforms," Holtz-Eakin said.

    ap.google.com

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 12:34pm

12. Now Obama is giving a speech on the economy. It sounds almost the same as the McCain speech. Except not as penetrating. Obama is not a good snake oil salesman. At the end of the McCain speech he said "Drill Baby Drill" out of nowhere and the crowd went apoplectic. The suckers love a good snake oil salesman. Maybe we are in trouble here...

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/16/2008 @ 12:39pm

13. Posted by chaoszen at 09/16/2008 @ 12:39pm

    Don't mention "snake oil"...some of these Repubs will say that it's only "tree-hugging Dems and enviro-nuts which prevent us from drilling snakes for their oil and becoming energy independent from Venezuelan Commie snake oil!!!!"

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 12:44pm

14. Actually, to come to FREIHEIT's defense, sometimes he can be reasoned with. And frankly, some of his views, especially with regard to the financial system, are right on the money, pardon the pun.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/16/2008 @ 12:48pm

15. Now Obama is giving a speech on the economy. It sounds almost the same as the McCain speech. Except not as penetrating. Obama is not a good snake oil salesman. At the end of the McCain speech he said "Drill Baby Drill" out of nowhere and the crowd went apoplectic. The suckers love a good snake oil salesman. Maybe we are in trouble here... Posted by chaoszen at 09/16/2008 @ 12:39pm

    Just give it a bit. McCain got his convention bounce, things are starting to stabilize now and his bounce his slowly peeling away. Palin's favorability is going down. After all LVL is the one who said that Obama's bump was weak because he didn't even hit a double digit lead. McCain didn't even breach a 5 point lead.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2008 @ 1:04pm

16. Don't mention "snake oil"... Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 12:44pm

    OOPS. My bad..

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/16/2008 @ 1:09pm

17. Just give it a bit. McCain got his convention bounce, things are starting to stabilize now and his bounce his slowly peeling away. Palin's favorability is going down. After all LVL is the one who said that Obama's bump was weak because he didn't even hit a double digit lead. McCain didn't even breach a 5 point lead.

    Posted by Cccomfo1 at 09/16/2008 @ 1:04pm

    I will take heart in that. I am easily flabbergasted. I must recover some faith in the American electorate. At least until November. Then depending on the results of my misplaced optimism I can always use my passport and fly to Amsterdam. That is unless by that time im on the "No Fly" list.

    Posted by chaoszen at 09/16/2008 @ 1:19pm

18. LVLIBERTY1:

    Acutally, he just refused to allow McCain's mouthpiece, Nancy Pfotenhauer, to spew McCain's talking points. Were she not so blatant in her lying, he probably would have been much more amenable to her bullshit. But due to her complete lack of credibility, he dismantled her.

    Pretty funny to watch actually, considering how much of a simpering sycophant Matthews usually is.

    Posted by jorcheim at 09/16/2008 @ 1:57pm

19. Posted by jorcheim at 09/16/2008 @ 1:57pm

    Wish he could have asked her about the "McCain invented the Blackberry" thing...but that just broke a few hours ago!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 2:27pm

20. People watch Matthews? Masochism runs deep in our society, I guess. And apparently, he is on the left? Who knew?

    Then again, this is LVL who thinks anyone to the left of Goldwater is a frickin' commie - and might need to be sent to a reeducation camp to learn about lovin' liberty.

    Way too funny, really.

    Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2008 @ 2:29pm

21. Posted by srjenkins at 09/16/2008 @ 2:29pm

    "Goldwater"?....try Alf Landon!

    heheh

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 2:30pm

22. 'JOHN MCCAIN INVENTED THE 'BLACKBERRY'!

    "Well, I was chasing a bear through the woods with my flintlock rifle and stumbled on some brambles and landed face first right into th.... " "Ooops what's that? Joe Lieberman is talking hrougho my hearing aid and telling me that they're not talking about BERRIES - which I did invent, with God's help, but instead some sort of new-fangled computer phone thing-a-ma-bob. Sorry folks...now what was I saying? Oh Yes....Obama is going to raise your taxes 352% on his first day if elected and force everyone into labor unions while juggling dead babies and squeezing stem cells out of them."

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/16/2008 @ 4:06pm

23. Posted by leftofcenter at 09/16/2008 @ 4:06pm

    If ol' FROSTY were around, I'd put him on Search Mode and have him pull every post from the Right on "Al Gore inventing the Internet"....

    and link it to McCain's guy saying ol' Maverick inventing the Blackberry!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 4:33pm

24. That interview with Smiling-Labotomy-Girl was a hoot. If only we could have more like those...

    Posted by goddess1871 at 09/16/2008 @ 5:25pm

25. What in the world gives these shiny, prissy Republican women, without exception, these awful shrill voices? They all sound like brakes screeching.

    Posted by LPB1103 at 09/16/2008 @ 6:33pm

26. Matthews does OK. The problem is that he lets go by--several times!-- her assertion that Obama plans to raise taxes. That's weaseling at best. In truth, though, any honest person would acknowledge that it's a de facto lie.

    On the wealthiest 1%, yes. On everyone else, no. In fact, for most taxpayers Obama reduces taxes more than McCain. That little goody just cannot be ignored! I hope it comes up in the "debates."

    Posted by Scarabus at 09/16/2008 @ 7:56pm

27. "Matthews does OK. The problem is that he lets go by--several times!-- her assertion that Obama plans to raise taxes. That's weaseling at best. In truth, though, any honest person would acknowledge that it's a de facto lie."

    Yes, this bugged me as well. Most of these tax breaks are for upper-middle-class families that Bush put through. Sorry to say the threshold for "upper-middle-class" is damn high. I would venture to guess that a lot of people who vote Republican think they are upper middle class, even though they are only making maybe $150,000 per year. They would LOVE to think they are part of the elite, when nothing could be further from the truth. The vast majority of us are getting SCREWED royally by these tax cuts.

    Posted by goddess1871 at 09/16/2008 @ 8:18pm

28. Pfotenhauer should have taken a page from Palin's playbook: "John McCain is on a mission from God. His economic plan was drafted by God himself and has God's blessing. How can you question it and call yourself a loyal American, Chris? You ask me how I voted four years ago. I ask you, when will you accept Jesus as your lord and savior? Amen. Halleluia!"

    Posted by ceejayay at 09/16/2008 @ 8:24pm

29. Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/16/2008 @ 8:46pm

    Come on, HAPP...what did RUSH used to say?

    Didn't he say "The Drive-by Media LOVE McCain...and he loved them. They'd go to him to find some Republican who would attack Bush. And he'd encourage it and they'd fawn all over him!"

    NOW...you want to claim that McCain and St. Sarah "have no desire to please the major Media"?!??!?!?

    Sorry....Limbaugh had it right for once. For all your "The Media were fawning over Obama"....they gave McCain a total pass, especially on "touchy" issues like reversing himself on the Bush tax cuts or saying he'd vote against his OWN immigration plan.

    But as he sold out....their love faded. As he lied and smeared....the embers died.

    Now they see him for the guy who was attacked by Rove...now EMBRACING Rovian tactics. The guy who defended Kerry from Swift Vets...now using the same methods!

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 10:04pm

30. "Obama will rasie taxes!" is all Pfotenhauer/McCain/Palin/Republican Party can say even though non-partisan research PROVES Obama will give 95% of Americans a tax BREAK. She never answers Matthews' questions, just repeats the same bullshit talking point which is an outright fraud, a lie. Goebbels once said, "if you repeat a lie often enough, people will eventually believe it." So we now see EXACTLY where the Republican Party campaign designs come from & the formula they follow: convincing white working class & middle class people that Obama's a "threat" to their culture, whether through "raising taxes" or a threat to "the culture of life" ( a baby killer). Nazi fear 101. Didn't I once read several years ago of a John McCain who responded to George W. Bush's denial of his neo-Nazi propaganda smears against McCain, "don't give me that shit."? Must've been one of the late David Foster Wallace's sartorial fiction pieces.

    Posted by superdave at 09/16/2008 @ 11:16pm

31. Posted by Maskdelta at 09/16/2008 @ 10:04pm

    Thanks Mask for inclusion in the 4th circle amongst the greats. In true Palin fashion I'm aspiring to join the 2nd circle Frei. But as with the possible aspirations of the lovely Sarah, after that who knows ?

    Unfortunately we don't get too much of your tele over here but reading the print media I think McCain was "loved" by the media up until it looked like he was getting close to heading Obama.

    What of course the "defection" of his right wing former supposed supporters indicates is that McCain probably is a bit too lefty (or should that be maverick like) for them. So he was always in their estimation a loser. I notice one of my old favourites, David Brooks, has been nobbled by the NYT or is voluntarily trying to keep his job. I get most of my posts past the censor there, except not one that is even mildly critical of Obama. So 4th circle or not, NYT is not impressed with any opposition to the editorial line.

    At the WP, which also turned first on the glamour girl and now McCain and "his lies" it is a little different. It has a civilised policy, like The Nation, of publishing every post then removing it for swearing etc. if necessary. I get all my jabs at the big O published. Also love getting stuck into that notorious old partisan lefty, E J Dionne, who sometimes visits our fair shores to corrupt us with his political heresy.

    Overall I think all your media, left and right lacks depth in that it treats "political analysis" as a team sport. But it's all good fun. If you're into sports.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/16/2008 @ 11:31pm

32. "...she and McCain have no desire to please "major media sources" when they do Washington!"

    Posted by SooHAPPY at 09/16/2008 @ 8:46pm | ignore this person

    They have no desire to see her lack of knowledge on full display again. So go ahead Sean Hannity, put country first. I bet she filibusters the debate. Just like the truth, the media has always been a tool to Karl Rove. Lie blatantly over and over, then blame the media for catching you. It seems to be the only new trick Karl has taught that old dog.

    By the way SooHAPPY, what do you mean "...when they do Washington!" Haven't they already done enough to Washington?

    Posted by CanWeQuestionPalin? at 09/17/2008 @ 01:14am

33. Posted by lrjones4 at 09/16/2008 @ 11:31pm

    Never forget you, LR. How COULD one? A die-hard neo-con AUSTRALIAN!?!??!?

    BTW, always wondered about this...if you had your druthers, would you like to see your "state-run health care" scrapped and it go back to private insurance and "pay if you can"?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 08:55am

34. Q: How can you tell McCain is lying?

    A: His mouth is moving

    Posted by leftofcenter at 09/17/2008 @ 08:59am

35. BTW, always wondered about this...if you had your druthers, would you like to see your "state-run health care" scrapped and it go back to private insurance and "pay if you can"?

    Posted by Maskdelta at 09/17/2008 @ 08:55am

    I've never had private insurance probably because I've never been really sick and am a bit if a gambler. I pay about a 1.5% surcharge for Medicare. If you have private cover you get some or the entire surcharge back (top personal tax rate is 46.5% for a salary over $180,000 which includes the surcharge so it probably costs me as much as private insurance would).

    With the public system you can wait for up to 2 years for non-elective surgery, get whichever surgeon is available and get kicked out of hospital almost as soon as all the vital signs of life return.

    I probably will get some insurance as I get older so I can have a choice of surgeon. We just extradited an Indian surgeon, who had fled to the US, after killing quite a few good Aussies in a Brisbane public hospital where he was head of surgery. Turns out he wasn't properly qualified and not too dextrous with the old scalpel.

    Sort of made me think about a bit of private cover until I heard on TV some old codger in a wheel chair in Texas refusing to move out of the path of the storm the other day. He said: "If the good Lord wants to take me, I'm ready to go." So I think I'll keep gambling for a while anyway.

    My son who was recently a post grad student at Penn State Uni had an anaphylactic attack after eating in a restaurant there, said you have the best health system in the world. wouldn't take much to be better than ours.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/17/2008 @ 10:58am

36. Mask, I suppose you read between the lines that our public health system is in "crisis" to use that word again. But many people who probably can't afford Private Heath Cover (insurance) buy it because they want choice in their health care. I forgot to mention on top of the 1.5% Medicare levy those, not in a private fund and earning over *$50,000 have to pay an extra $500 pa for the privilege of Public Health (Medicare) cover.

    Our new centre-left government that tends to want universal "free" cover for all had intended to raise the threshold to over *$100,000. That legislation was rejected in the Senate because it was thought those people, who the ones more likely to be contributing to private funds, would:

    1. Get out of the private funds thus reducing the viability of the funds.

    2. Increase the overload on the public health system and further exacerbate the "crisis" of long, viz 2-year waiting lists for elective surgery.

    I know of many on the age pension who have been waiting years for hip replacements, hernia operations because they do not have private cover. It invariably takes months for these and other patrons of the Public system to even get to see a specialist.

    So you Americans need to look before you leap and don't mess up what you already have. "Free" public health care is an enormously expensive drain on the public purse.

    Posted by lrjones4 at 09/17/2008 @ 6:16pm

37. Wow! Nancy Pfotenhauer is suffering a rather severe disconnect from reality.

    AIG insures $70 TRILLION in bank debt and things in the economy are fundamentally sound? Do you folks have any idea of what would happen if banks suffered a $70 trillion failure? It would make the Great Depression look like a birthday party.

    Posted by MT_Guy at 09/18/2008 @ 2:48pm