Who'll Dare Pop McCain's Bubble?
By Brian Lambert
The moment is nearly upon us. The streets have been scrubbed. The indigent have been scrubbed. The prices have been jacked up, and every newsroom in town has made exhaustive plans to cover the big news of the Republican National Convention. All we need now is . . . well, news.
The striking thing about news planning for the big RNC get-together—you know, as the Daily Show billboard says, the quadrennial gathering of "rich white oligarchs"—is that almost no one expects to cover "news" as we used to think of it at these things. John McCain will pick his running mate next Friday, before the masses descend on St. Paul. (Please, God, make it be Mitt Romney. The rest of my life will be one act of goodness if you just give me that.) So unless, John "Always Remember, I Was a POW" McCain nods off in the middle of his acceptance speech or has to ask a staffer how many wives he has, there's no expectation of anything particularly newsworthy coming out of the official business of the convention.
In fact, my always fallible radar for the "hottest 'get' in town"—the star media colleagues most want to score an interview with—says McCain, W., and Cheney could stay home on their respective estates and let the press horde have at . . . Jon Stewart. Recently touted as, "The Most Trusted Man in America," the appeal of Stewart dwarfs any detectable interest in the usual crowd—the Katie Courics, Charlie Gibsons, Brian Williams, and Wolf Blitzers of the world.
It isn't difficult to understand why, is it? Even back when McCain was "St. John," the darling of every political reporter desperate for the kind of boys-being-boys barroom bon hommie they've all dreamed about, Stewart was the one putting the toughest questions to McCain, even as they flattered each other with affectionate zingers. His high standing among the public has plenty to do with being able to play outside the "balance" game so essential to commercial news. Where the big networks have to deliver a product that defends and offends in roughly equal doses, no matter who is clearly the idiot or scoundrel, Stewart (and his crew) are free to engage in the "new media's" greatest virtue . . . the truth as they see it—and you can check their sources.
So much has been said about Stewart's ascension in reaction to (his) public's revulsion at the so-called mainstream media's craven performance from 9/11 until the 2006 election, it's easy to overlook how poorly the network stars (and their provincial cousins at regional newspapers and television stations) performed during the 2000 and 2004 elections. To condense the prevailing news memes from those contests: George W. Bush, though clearly lacking the executive experience, intellectual curiosity, and level of preparedness for dealing with international and economic crises, was "a guy you'd have a beer with" while Al Gore "lied about inventing the Internet" and ran a bad campaign. Then in '04, Bush was still the guy on the stool next to you at the bar while John Kerry was an elitist who could speak French . . . and ran a bad campaign . . . by not refuting the Swift Boat liars faster than he did. Basically, campaign skills trumped any question over who was a fool and who knew what they were talking about.
Stewart's people weren't the only ones throwing up their hands. What Stewart's shtick did and continues to do is scald the mainstream press for its gross failure of nerve and probity. By definition, if you're in the game of journalism, you go after what's meaningful and relevant and hammer on it until the fools and crooks relent, or you give up your claim to be the public's most credible source of information. Stewart and his crony Stephen Colbert have consistently, reliably done that; ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and MSNBC have not, hence their high standing.
The question, now that the presidential campaign is beginning in earnest, is whether the American press will once again take their cues from half-baked "reads" of "average American consensus"—which is fundamentally just horserace stuff, what tricks and spins work, what don't—or whether they persistently pursue the far . . . far . . . more relevant stuff of who is lying, bulls***ng, prevaricating, or flat-out clueless. Screw having a beer with the next president; the big upgrade would be someone who is, as Stewart has joked, "a LOT smarter than me," not to mention awake and functioning . . . in my interests, not that of his social peers and benefactors.
With that in mind, the litmus test here at the start of the fall campaign will be how vigorously the press pushes and assesses the "preparedness" and "judgment" factors. Both Obama and McCain are making accusations against the other. I know Stewart and his team regard these questions as valid enough to monitor daily. Will ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, or MSNBC? Mark me "Dubious." To do so would risk charges of bias. It is far safer to report on and gauge campaign strategy.
Likewise, I expect Stewart and Colbert to be the only ones brave enough to scream, "Enough!" on McCain's all-purpose deflection shield: his five years as a POW. This bit is now well into Rudy "A noun, a verb, and 9/11" Giuliani-land.
McCain—the common guy running against an "elitist"—can't remember how many houses he owns. Why? The answer? "For God's sake, you troop-hating bastard. He was a POW! He was tortured! How dare you?"
McCain can't remember what kind of car he drives. "He was a POW!"
McCain thinks (Shiite) Iran has been funding (Sunni) Al Qaeda. "A POW! Tortured!"
An Iraq-Afghanistan border? "POW!"
It is beyond ludicrous. To mix metaphors, it is a slab of red meat-on-a-tee ludicrous. Clumped together, it is indicative of both a stunning out-of-touch bubble mentality and, when you cheapen your POW experience for rank political expediency, shockingly poor judgment. But the mainline press—hyper-sensitive to blowback from the "American values" reader/viewer/advertiser, people who believe military service inoculates a candidate from criticism, unless he's John Kerry—will not dare tread where Stewart and the new media are going.
Instead, I look forward to their breathless thumbsuckers on the RNC platform committee's capital gains report and their deeply sourced assessment of what Cindy McCain wears at the podium.
© 2008 MSP Communications, Inc. All rights reserved
I'll grant you the point on Teflon McCain, it's a fair criticism. But I'm curious where the same critique is of the press and Obama, I mean BLACK Obama. The press has treated him with kid gloves also, afraid to sound racist.
Take your favorite shot at Fox all you want, but NBC has been shilling for Obama the entire campaign (think Andrea Mitchell).
I think you will get your dream Republican VP candidate (Romney) thanks to the Biden pick. I doubt McCain will toss TPaw out there to debate with Biden.
And for fairness, Denver also swept their streets of indigents and erected fences for the protesters.
Off to EBay to hunt down a Ron Paul bumper sticker...
LAMBERT: By all means apply relentless assessment of preparedness and judgment to both candidates. I've got no worries there.
Posted by: Dave on August 24, 2008 at 8:15 PM
You are my hero. I say that without a trace of sarcasm.
LAMBERT: I'm more comfortable with sarcasm.
Posted by: yowza on August 24, 2008 at 8:30 PM
I think you throw MSNBC in the mix too easily. Mr Olbermann regularly calls the media and the Foxlies network. In fact, after I close the bar (working-- own it) I turn on the replay of Olbermann just to feel better about the world.
LAMBERT: I generally like Olbermann. But ... Chris Matthews ... I mean, if he cares about anything beyond what wins, I haven't seen it.
Posted by: Paul on August 25, 2008 at 12:28 AM
Funny, I always experienced Senator McCain as understating his POW experience.
By the way, if you are convinced and have proof the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth lied, please go to T. Boone Pickens who has $1,000,000 for the person that can prove any of their assertions wrong.
I have never heard Senator McCain reference any of the issues you mentioned as beomg due to his POW experience. I guess these are the new liberal talking points, but they will be easy to refute.
LAMBERT: Did you miss McCain over the weekend deflecting a question about his ... ten ... houses with a reference to the years he spent "without a table or chair"? Good lord!
As for T. Boone's "bounty". i refer you to this:
Source: NYT
T. Boone Pickens is not giving up his million dollars.
That’s how much he had offered to pay anyone who could disprove any of the accusations the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth made against Senator John Kerry in the 2004 presidential election – attacks Mr. Pickens, the billionaire Texas oilman, helped finance.
A group of Swift boat veterans sympathetic to Mr. Kerry sent Mr. Pickens a letter last week taking him up on the challenge. In 12 pages, plus a 42-page attachment of military records and other documents, they identified not just one but ten lies in the group’s campaign against Mr. Kerry. They offered to meet with him to provide Mr. Kerry’s journals and videotapes from Vietnam and a copy of his full military record certified by the Navy – a key demand of Mr. Pickens and veterans who believe Mr. Kerry lied about his service to win his military decorations.
Mr. Pickens replied with a one-page letter, thanking the veterans for their research and their service, but politely saying there had been a misunderstanding. “Key aspects of my offer of $1 million have not been accurately reported,” he wrote.
(snip)
In his letter, Mr. Pickens explained that his bet actually applied to only the television ads the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth bought, and not to their bestselling book or the media interviews that generated more attention than the ads themselves.
Read more: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/25/t-boone-p... /
Posted by: Bleuler on August 25, 2008 at 9:56 AM
Has anyone considered the possibility that McCain was brainwashed by the North Vietnamese during his five years in captivity? It certainly appears his brain has been scrubbed in some fashion. Brian, please wear your Queen of Hearts costume down to Kellogg Avenue next week and see how the great man reacts.
LAMBERT: But I rented a Mad Hatter outfit ...
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on August 25, 2008 at 10:09 AM
Make that the Queen of Diamonds.
LAMBERT: Cheshire Cat?
Posted by: A Son of Mississippi on August 25, 2008 at 10:12 AM
That would be "bonhomie," one word, one m. Italics would be nice, too, 'cause it's French after all. Don't ask me why "bonhomme" has two ms, it's just one of those ipse dixit sorta things.
LAMBERTY: You are correct, damn you.
Posted by: Gaius Valerius C. on August 25, 2008 at 1:00 PM
I leave my "french" issues to "ClaudeNRick" (TM).
My, but my ardor for them hardly compares with the tempest Ms. Kersten doth stir up!
(Cross off weekly snipe).
Posted by: bertram jr on August 25, 2008 at 2:05 PM
Why is John McCain being poked fun at for bringing up his time in a POW camp, when John Kerry pounded his five months in Vietnam during his entire 2004 campaign - which was really all his campaign was, and consequently folded when the Swift Boat Vets for Truth (who are about as truthful as Moveon.org)
John Kerry and his strongest supporters were insulted when anyone dare question either his use of Vietnam, or what he actually did in Vietnam. When its a Republican, its all fair game.
LAMBERT: It may be precisely BECAUSE your team thought nothing of slandering a vet that McCain is being ripped for insisting that his war service inoculates him from any criticism -- including owning, much less not knowing about his 10 houses. Goose, gander.
Posted by: Namzso on August 27, 2008 at 1:06 AM
Goose, Gander
That is fine - but it shows that the left is just as capable and able of running the negative smear campaigns. This idea that the right is the initial and only propaganda smear machine is to take a quote from Lambert "BS".
I am guessing even today if one were to ask John Kerry how many homes he owns, he would not know.
LAMBERT: imagine this in the context of ... what is true. Your team never seems uncomfortable with flat out distortion and outright lies. The Swift Boat "Veterans" (i.e. Texas millionaires) grossly distorted and lied about Kerry's war record. No Democrat is lying about either McCain's war record or the number of homes he owns. In fact the guy doing most of the talking is McCain himself. If the Republicans wanted to go after Kerry for being a rich guy, that'd be fair game. Oh wait, they did that, too.
Posted by: Namzso on August 27, 2008 at 9:49 PM
If Jon Stewart is not afraid to ask the tough questions, why was he not asking more questions to John Kerry in 2004 about Kerry's voting record on Iraq and not on the cute Larry King style fuzzball questions on his wife's condiment business?
LAMBERT: My guess would be that as Stewart apraised Kerry and (your guy) George W. he saw a Grand Canyon-like abyss separating "qualified" from "demonstrably incompetent". After that Mrs. Kerry's ketchup money didn't seem so important. You guys need to grasp the ... fact ... that George W.'s regime has not been "business as usual". It has been a disaster.
Posted by: Namzso on August 27, 2008 at 9:51 PM
Just out of curiosity, why do you hope the running mate is Mitt Romney?
LAMBERT: Rudy Giuliani may have run the worst -- i.e. most flat-out stupid -- campaign in recent memory, but Romney's was easily the most craven. He did a 180 for every audience he talked to. Joe Biden v. Romney ... oh please Lord, please.
Posted by: Namzso on August 27, 2008 at 9:52 PM