It happens sometimes. Political columnists, like professional athletes, can get stuck in a rut and have awful seasons. It reflects poorly on their overall career and\/or body of work, and for their audience it can be cringe inducing, but in the end, one has to wonder if the slump will ever end.<\/p>\n
With this in mind, it’s fair to say the Washington Post’s Richard Cohen is having a very bad year. Last week, he devoted an entire column to complaining about young people getting tattoos<\/a>. In June, Cohen argued that McCain may be a flip-flopper, but we shouldn’t question him<\/a> because he’s also a former prisoner of war. In April, Cohen described McCain as an “honorable man who has fudged and ducked and swallowed the truth on occasion,” which Cohen described as “understandable.” (He didn’t say why<\/i> McCain’s mendacity is “understandable<\/a>,” but simply granted absolution.) On New Year’s Eve, Cohen devoted an entire column<\/a> to criticizing Obama for mentioning a statistic about race that Cohen insists is false. (Cohen’s piece included obvious errors of fact and judgment<\/a>. For that matter, a closer look at the disputed statistic showed that Obama was probably right, not wrong<\/a>.)<\/p>\n Today, Cohen returns to a tired cliche: he knows McCain better than Obama<\/a>.<\/p>\n “Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire,” I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama’s speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.<\/p>\n On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions — not speeches — that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe. First, of course, is his decision as a Vietnam prisoner of war to refuse freedom out of concern that he would be exploited for propaganda purposes. To paraphrase what Kipling said about Gunga Din, John McCain is a better man than most.<\/p>\n But I would not stop there. I would include campaign finance reform, which infuriated so many in his own party; opposition to earmarks, which won him no friends; his politically imprudent opposition to the Medicare prescription drug bill (Medicare has about $35 trillion in unfunded obligations); and, last but not least, his very early call for additional troops in Iraq. His was a lonely position — virtually suicidal for an all-but-certain presidential candidate and no help when his campaign nearly expired last summer. In all these cases, McCain stuck to his guns.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n Why the Washington Post publishes columns like this one is a mystery. Looking over the list of “actions” that McCain has taken that has elicited Cohen’s “awe,” I can’t help but wonder if Cohen is paying close enough attention to current events. Cohen cites McCain’s support for campaign-finance reform, without noting that McCain has reversed course<\/a> on some of the same provisions he used to sponsor. Cohen pointed to McCain’s “opposition” to earmarks, without noting that McCain has actually supported earmarks<\/a> that benefit his home state. Cohen cited McCain’s opposition to Bush’s Medicare prescription drug bill, which is true, but I’m not sure what’s so “awe”-inspiring about this — plenty of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle balked at the legislation. <\/p>\n But it’s that last one that’s really bizarre: McCain’s “very early call for additional troops in Iraq,” which Cohen described as “virtually suicidal” for a presidential candidate. Cohen is, unfortunately, very confused. McCain intermittently called for additional troops, but he also publicly stated his satisfaction with the Bush administration’s policy (and deployment numbers<\/a>), repeatedly insisting that the U.S. “stay the course,” no matter how badly Bush’s policy was failing. For that matter, to suggest McCain was somehow unique among Republican presidential candidates in supporting the surge is actually backwards<\/a>.<\/p>\n Cohen’s piece went on to herald McCain’s “integrity,” while blasting Obama as a serial flip-flopper, pointing to three whole policy reversals, one of which is factually wrong. Cohen does realize McCain has flip-flopped 71 times<\/a> (and counting), does he not?<\/p>\n
\n
\nThe NYT’s Bob Herbert had an interesting item<\/a> over the weekend that challenged the conventional wisdom, arguing that Americans may not know John McCain as well as they think they do. Cohen seems to respond, “No, I like the conventional wisdom just fine, thank you.”<\/p>\n