John McCain was once a media darling. The last time he ran for President, long ago and far away in 2000, the press couldn’t restrain itself from slobbering over him.
Slobbering? Don’t blame me, it’s not my word. No lesser light than the august Haley Barbour (former chairman of the Republican National Committee and Bush supporter way back then) declared it to be the case, and former Senator Warren Rudman (McCain’s campaign manager at the time) as well as WaPo columnist Mary McGrory, concurred that “slobber” well described the press attitude towards McCain.
It’s like looking back at the loving courtship letters of a couple whose marriage ended up in the bitterness of divorce court. Here’s Evan Thomas, assistant managing editor of Newsweek at the time:
Yes, [the media] are totally in love with John McCain…He gives great access [to the press]. He gives great quotes. He’s funny-he’s teasing. He’s a fellow subversive in some ways. And they’re all sort of united against the establishment. And he’s a great story.
(Interesting, by the way, that the press–or at least Evan Thomas–saw [sees?] itself as “subversive.”)
So, what’s happened to the budding romance? To be blunt, McCain–once so bright-eyed and cuddly–is past his pull date.
Seven subsequent years of sloshing around in DC have meant that, if elected, he’d be the oldest President to ever win. And the years have not aged him like a fine wine (kicking around in Congress rarely does). Some of his pet projects–such as the McCain-Feingold bill–have turned out rather disastrously. And now, to top it all off, he’s saddled by being perceived as a sort of Bush Lite on the war in Iraq. It must be galling to him, since there didn’t used to be that much love lost between McCain and Bush.
As Peggy Noonan wrote in yesterday’s Opinion Journal, McCain’s obstinate personality, combined with his support for the Iraq War, may have cost him in subtle ways, even (or perhaps especially) among Republicans, who:
…don’t precisely want another W. for president, another man who seems just as convinced, stubborn, single-minded, invested.
I’m not so sure I agree with Noonan, but perhaps she’s correct. I think it’s important to remember that McCain’s biggest support never really came from paleoconservatives; he was perceived long ago as a Republican who leaned more to the middle, and therefore appealed to moderates. And that position in the Republican Party has been taken over by a younger, fresher face: that of Rudy Giuliani.
The two have something in common that most of the other candidates lack: the public perception that they have personal courage. No, “perception” isn’t quite the right word–”knowledge” is. Both have been tested under fire–in very different ways–and come through with valor.
McCain’s test was much longer and harder (look here under “Vietnam” if you’re not familiar with this part of McCain’s history). No one can question his extraordinary personal heroism; it’s probably the most salient feature of his biography. But it occurred in what’s now, politically speaking, the distant past–and was, for the most part, out of the US public eye at the time. Therefore it doesn’t seem as relevant as Giuliani’s recent performance in the immediate post-9/11 era, a public demonstration of his leadership in the face of terrorism and the threat of chaos following the attack.
It seems that, in psychological terms, Americans nationwide bonded with Giuliani during a time of grave crisis. A person perceived as being an anchor in a ferocious storm, a cool head under pressure, and a reassuring presence in a time of instability engenders trust and affection. Whether or not you like Giuliani’s politics, or approve of the way he’s led his private life, or think he’s an opportunistic SOB, there’s still that core truth: he demonstrated extraordinary grit during one of the most difficult times in the life of our nation.
Giuliani’s emotional honesty was part of it. He wasn’t afraid to show sorrow, and he rose to heights of eloquence time and again in his speeches and eulogies of the time. In sum, he seemed sincere and emotional without ever becoming maudlin, while preserving and conveying a sense of strength. One of the traits Americans are looking for in a President right now seems to be leadership, and Giuliani showed that trait right after 9/11 in a manner that could be felt deep within the gut.
How can McCain compete? And the MSM, in time-honored fashion, which once upon a time jumped on his bandwagon en masse, has now jumped off in unison.
Previously a lifelong Democrat, born in New York and living in New England, surrounded by liberals on all sides, I've found myself slowly but surely
March 3rd, 2007 at 1:45 pm
At least his bandwagon will be drier, without all the Mediadrool on it.
March 3rd, 2007 at 6:45 pm
Some of the McCain media love here in NH was just another way to kick Bush without looking like the partisan hacks they were. The breathless statements about McCain in 1999 nearly always had him in contrast to the other Republicans in general, usually Bush in specific.
I’m sure this sounds so tired and repetitive of me to say this in 2007, after the claim of Bush-hatred has been made so many times. But in 1999, it was new and a puzzle to me. Both Bush and McCain were only middling conservative - why did these reporters hate one guy so much and like the other? I have theories of my own now, but at the time there seemed no obvious explanation. Herd instinct was part of it.
March 3rd, 2007 at 11:04 pm
McCain Drain…
Neo-NeoCon has a lengthy post on the fall of Amigo McCain as media darling and the subsequent Rudy surge. Although she talks up Amigo Rudy more than is to our liking, she’s quite right about what caused the supersession:
I think it’s important …
March 4th, 2007 at 1:34 am
So over. OMG you say that again and again.
March 4th, 2007 at 1:37 pm
no tags.
Fundament.
McCain.
“The Warriors swore Peace and were given Suns
to sleep. The Suns have been beyond count.
Awaken the warriors now.
The Warriors awaken to con-Quiere.”
OK. I have no idea where the above quote finds
its root author, but it is no less a stalwarth of earl
by way the green island hills of Ice Bound Close.
The above description of a geographical area
does pose a certitude for ancient origins: Origins
finding a poet trying to hear an answer to the
ineptitude of living leaders cawing a callow
message to the real fignters of blood (a youth
yet endowed with a true cause) — Thois gives…
(Author’s note: whether the above is a channeled
transmission or delicately translated from the Celtic
Stone of geological Tigres-Euphrates “Aeran” carboniferous schist , the meaning bears upon a
compelling entrainment to answer our fighting
force today!)
Why all the forword? To explain that our proposed
reliance upon our present Administration to expand
the American Empire is pure lunacy. Despite their
intentions for energy dominance, they (ie, Neocon)
have completely missed the mark. Their view
rests in the past of Colonial conquest where the
quickest verbal message came from a homing bird.
“Neo-neocon is lightfast” said the awakened one.
What kind of a script are they waiting for? Would
they believe a Leader if they knew one? Hold on
cause I am getting ahead of myself. American
Empire was in relatively good repair until leadership
forgot the early lessons from the republic. I will not
design to label any given beginning on the fall, only
to say that the real Warrior from the Republic is
not at present within the confines of the Administrative part of Empire. I doubt you will
find him in any physical part of the Governing Body.
As the forword sings
March 4th, 2007 at 1:51 pm
P.S. I like the apple.
March 4th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
Your take is absolutely perfect pitch. As for your aside — “Interesting, by the way, that the press–or at least Evan Thomas–saw [sees?] itself as “subversive” — That’s actually where they’ve been for years. Check out my Soylent green of a couple of years back, where I quote an environmental reporter at The Boston Globe, Dianne Dumanoski, who wrote way back in 1990 “There is no such thing as objective reporting . . . I’ve become even more crafty about finding the voices to say the things I think are true. That’s my subversive mission.”
In the same post I quote Andrea Mitchell shamelessly acknowledging that as far as green bias, “clearly the networks have made the decision now, where you’d have to call it advocacy.”
March 4th, 2007 at 6:48 pm
“”why did these reporters hate one guy so much and like the other? I have theories of my own now, but at the time there seemed no obvious explanation. Herd instinct was part of it.”"
Because Bush mentions his faith in public twice a year and therefore “wears his religion on his sleeve”. Or so its spun by MSM.
I guess our founding fathers wore their religion on both sleeves AND both trouser legs?
March 4th, 2007 at 8:33 pm
youtube.comMullah Cimoc say: click on link for great anti war rap song by an iraki amerikan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mprsqx2VT8M&mode=related&search=
March 5th, 2007 at 12:35 pm
Yes, the press slobbered and I admit that I would have preferred McCain over Bush, but it’s important to realize that said slobbering was a nomination limiting phenomenon only. Had McCain become the standard bearer, the same press that lionized him would have buried him as soon as it became a race against any Democrat.
I predict the same for Rudy should his candidacy show legs. In the end, 95% of the press votes blue and doesn’t think islamofacism is an existential threat. Therefore, Rudy’s strength are really not needed.