In January, when John McCain indicated his willingness to leave U.S. troops in Iraq for 100 years, it was the single greatest gift the Republican candidate could have given to Democrats. The biggest goals for Dems in defining the GOP nominee is that he a) represents more of the same; and b) wants to keep Bush’s Iraq policy going indefinitely. The “100 years” comment did both — and we have it on film.
Now, a fair look at this shows that McCain didn’t seriously propose extending the status quo until 2108. He meant that he’d be satisfied with a long-term, Korea-like presence in Iraq. But the damage was done, and Dems had their soundbite/cudgel.
Tad Devine, John Kerry’s chief strategist in 2004, noted the similarities between “100 years” and Kerry’s claim that he voted for war spending before he voted against it. “It’s very easy to remember, No. 1. It’s also underlines a very important attack point that his opponents want to make,” Devine said. “And if McCain looks like he is backpedaling on anything and talking his way out of something, it totally undermines the centerpiece of his candidacy, that he is giving everybody a lot of straight talk.”
Mark Salter, McCain’s top adviser, isn’t happy with the comparison.
Salter denies that McCain’s comment is cut from the same mold as Kerry’s. He argues that the almost unprecedented amount of access granted to reporters by McCain allows time to clarify and expound on statements.
“If the press is going to play referee on what is a bogus claim and what isn’t, then this is one case,” he said.
Hmm, asking news outlets to “play referee.” Reporters would be tasked with helping the public understand the difference between credible criticisms of presidential hopefuls, and baseless attacks. Interesting.
But I have to admit, hearing McCain’s top campaign advisor asking the media to give McCain a hand on providing context and meaning seems, well, kind of ridiculous.
In one of those posts that I desperately wish I’d written, Kevin Drum takes a look at how effective the media has been in “playing referee” when it comes to the McCain campaign.
Foreign policy cred lets him get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. “Man of conviction” cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it.
Remind me again: where does all this cred come from? And what window do Democrats go to get the same treatment the press gives McCain?
Those need not be rhetorical questions.
Indeed, this isn’t new. Do we really need to rehash what the media did to Al Gore eight years ago?
Salter imagines a political world in which even-handed media outlets “play referee.” That sounds delightful. And just soon as the press starts calling obvious penalties on Salter’s boss, I’ll be very impressed.