McCain, Giuliani get by with a little help from their friends

November 28, 2006

According to the “thermometer” poll released yesterday by Quinnipiac, John McCain and Rudy Giuliani, two of the leading GOP presidential contenders for 2008, are at or near the top of the list of the most popular political figures in the country. I’d argue that at least some, if not most, of this base of support comes by virtue of media adoration.

For example, Greg Sargent noted Eleanor Clift’s latest Newsweek column, which lets McCain off the hook for his opposition to gay rights because, as Clift sees it, McCain doesn’t really mean it. From her column:

McCain was clearly squirming when ABC’s George Stephanopoulos pressed him on “This Week” last weekend about whether he supports civil unions, a loaded term among social conservatives who see it as a fig leaf for gay marriage. McCain avoided the phrase but said he supported various partnerships to facilitate hospital visits and the like. His home state of Arizona just voted down an anti-gay marriage initiative that also would have banned domestic partnerships even among heterosexual couples….

McCain gets more latitude on this subject because we sense that in his heart, he’s a Goldwater libertarian. Social issues are not what drive him in public life. He’s playing to his party’s conservative base as newly defined by the religious right, but if elected president, he’s not going to be beholden to them the way Bush has been…The voters may be less inclined to give Romney a pass if he goes overboard with his fealty to the right.

This is, to put it mildly, a terribly flawed approach. First, civil unions is not a “loaded term,” it’s an actual public policy phrase used by both sides. Second, Arizona’s rejection of an anti-gay marriage initiative isn’t helpful for McCain — because McCain actively supported the measure.

But Clift really gets into trouble when she says McCain is awarded “latitude” on the issue because “we sense that in his heart,” McCain doesn’t really oppose gay rights. What kind of analysis is this? It’s a dangerous notion for the pundits to embrace — we should no longer worry about what politicians say and do; we should instead judge them based on what we “sense” they truly believe.

This not only encourages someone like McCain to lie with impunity, it also makes it easy for him to appeal to literally everyone — those who agree with what he says and those who disagree but suspect “in his heart” that he’s on their side anyway.

Sargent added:

What’s more, why should we assume that McCain isn’t going to be beholden to the conservative base “the way Bush has been”? Clift simply doesn’t say. It’s just understood that when McCain panders to the right, we’re supposed to avert our eyes. […]

Here’s a thought: If McCain is such a straight-talker, maybe pundits should take McCain at his word when he says something that makes them uncomfortable.

And let’s not overlook Giuliani, who finished on top of the Quinnipiac thermometer poll and was the only political figure to top the 60-point threshold. How did Peter Brown, the Quinnipiac polling director, explain the former NYC mayor’s popularity? On MSNBC, Brown said:

“Well, I think because, he was America’s Mayor. After 9/11, Americans know him as the man who stood up to the terrorists, at least rhetorically.”

Look, Giuliani did an admirable job on 9/11. Instead of hiding, Giuliani reassured the public that the crisis was under control. It was impressive.

But in what universe did Giuliani stand up to terrorists after 9/11?

This is probably my biggest concern about 2008 — that the media and those who appear in the media will be so shamelessly fawning towards McCain and Giuliani, with or without cause, that Dems just won’t be able to keep up.

Like Bush could see into Putin’s heart, the pundits can read minds but not lips. Giuliani did well at PR stuff, but he dropped the ball on the safety of the twin towers area after the bombs. How many people are sick today because of his lapse in telling the truth about the dangers?

McCain? Ptooey.

  • I wouldn’t let McCain off so lightly either. This is a basic question about the nature of America and Americans. Do we think that there are special things we should save for just the right people under just the right circumstances (sex only during a state-sanctioned marriage, say) or do we believe in fairness that will not allow the state to recognize a spouse’s right to make medical decisions over a parents but does not give all couples the right to have that same recognition?

    Giuliani is either just a soon to self-implode joke or the Republican’t party really means none of what it says.

  • At some point (I keep telling myself) someone will dig into Giuliani’s culpability for the collapse of 7 WTC. If that day waits until after Giuliani’s knocked McCain out of the primaries, so much the better.

    Honestly, I really wish George Allen were running. (And Alan Keyes!)

  • The far right is no longer a decisive force in American politics, and we have to assume, now, that anyone who panders to them is not merely “doing what he has to” but is in fact “talking straight.”

    We don’t have to guess whether McCain is a moderate in right-wing drag. It’s really very simple: Is he a straight talker, or isn’t he? If he’s talking straight, then we need to take him at his word, not try to “sense” what’s “in his heart.” Bush “seemed” like a good guy to have a beer with. Turns out that’s all he was ever good at. Haven’t we all learned that following your gut is no way to elect a president or conduct policy?

  • I’m counting on George Bush being such a jerk for the next two years, that the voters will reject any Republican the media endorses.

  • Cut Rudy some slack, at least he once pushed for Bernard “Mr. Misdemeanor” Kerik for Homeland Security. That must have left Bin Laden shivering in his boots.

  • By adding a bit of a twist to Sargent, we can say:

    ***Here’s a thought: If McCain is such a straight-talker, maybe pundits should take McCain at his word when he says…***

    “I will commit suicide if the Democrats gain control of the Senate.”

    So what’s stoppin’ ya, JohnBoy? And who in the infernal regions would want such an unhinged character as POTUS? Suicide—even threatening such—is considered an affront to God, and this alone can wipe out his chances with the wingnut base—if it’s played out the right way, of course. His flip-flopping from the “express” philosophy of years-gone-by destroys his credibility with both liberals and progressives.

    McCain—and to a lesser extent, that pompous little twit from New York—are not factual contenders. They’re window-dressing; a two-pronged opportunity to play “Manchurian Candidate,” with the ulterior motive being to empower someone else (just as Herr Bush “empowered” Cheney). The $64-dollar question should be: Who are these two being set up for?

  • Dont worry the religious right and the RW blogs will destroy “pro choice” Guiliani and “crazy uncle” McCain during the 2008 Repub primary season…It will be a joy to watch each of them try to out flank the other and a joy to watch Repubs eat their own…..

  • “are not factual contenders”

    ? actual contenders ?

    “Who are these two being set up for?”

    Who are these two setting up?

    It’s an amusing theory but Boy George II and his Brain Rove could cut both of these guys out by just dumping Cheney for a Vice President who could crediably run in 2008.

  • I still am amazed that the downfall of this country will not/has not come from foreign threats or domestic authoritarian/incompetent types, but that it is lead by our media. Our media was directly responsible for 43’s presidency (failure to dig deep into and criticize Bush AND painting false caricatures of Gore) and for the Iraq War (failing to question or stand up to the incompetent Sadministration). Now they will no doubt play a part in the 2008 election, which will be one of the most important in this country’s history. And their influence will not be in a fact-finding, combative, agressive journalistic manner, but in the gossipy, pre-adolescent ‘mean girls’ manner. Absolutely incredible, considering freedom of the press was at one time worth figthing for.

  • John McCain is such a disapointment to most democratic moderates and Rudy is a mess in terms of his personal life and probably would not appeal to the religious right, so if those are the only choices they can come up with, I say President Clinton 2.

  • It will be interesting to see how the American media covers the 2008 Republican primary, because at some point Guiliani and McCain are going to have to attack each other (imagine the scene as Guliani and McCain staffers fight over who’s picking up the media’s bar bill at the Des Moines Holiday Inn), and a fawning press corp will have to decide who they love more.

    My sense is that Chris Matthews would rather quit than choose.

  • When John McCain supports a good cause it never passes and he eventually ends up on the other side. He is a Neocon Fraud not just politically but as a person, and has been increasingly so for at least 20 years. The MSM love him because he is a Corporatist Whore like so many of them.

  • we should no longer worry about what politicians say and do; we should instead judge them based on what we “sense” they truly believe. — CB

    “From the head does the fish begin to smell bad”… She’s basing her opinions on gut feelings, but she’s not the first, and she has the leader’s example to show her the way. It’s like Dale (@1) says…

    OTOH… MSM may be cutting Janus McCain plenty of slack but I doubt his brethern at the ‘pub primary will.

    ‘Bush “seemed” like a good guy to have a beer with. Turns out that’s all he was ever good at.’ — pk, @4

    You’re forgetting he’s a reformed alcoholic. So he’s no good for having a beer with, either 🙂

    As for Giuliani…
    On MSNBC, (Peter) Brown said:
    “Well, I think because, he was America’s Mayor. After 9/11, Americans know him as the man who stood up to the terrorists, at least rhetorically.”

    His *rhetoric* may have been great but as Dale (@1) pointed out, questions are being raised (by NYT, mostly) about his overly-optimistic assessment of the air quality following the Twin Towers’ collapse.

    And, for the past two days, the same NYT has been — oh, so innocently — pounding on the difference between Giuliani’s reaction to the police’s killing of Amadou Diallo and Bloomberg’s reaction to the police’s killing of Sean Bell. That’s in *both*: articles and editorials (which aren’t always “ideologically aligned”).

    It seems that NYT doesn’t particularly like Giuliani (they don’t much like Sen. Clinton, either). But it also means that they’re likely to make sure that he’s a dead duck for *both* the neocons and the moderates, if he insists on running, even if the neocons by themselves don’t have the wits to dig up all the dirt on him and then twist it to make it look even worse.

  • I’m terribly disappointed with John McCain since he Whored himself to Jerry Falwell’s graduating class at Liberty University.

    As for giving him a pass on whatever is “in his heart”, there is NO F***ING way. That’s exactly what conservative gay voters did in Texas and California in Bush’s 2000 campaign. We “heard things” from Bush insiders about how gay marriage “really doen’t matter” to George Bush. In reality, it was actually the case for Laura, not George Bush. Fortunately, the “Bush Error, was corrected in 2004 by gay conservatives. What is in McCain’s heart about gays and gay marriage will have to come out the horse’s mouth. I expect nothing positive will. He’s already outed himself as an anti-gay bigot. It’s a shame. I respected the man. But he can rot in hell now. I’ll take Giuliani and his two gay roommates any day.

    • Comments are closed.