I missed this, but it is so true:
As I noted earlier, after Phil Gramm said America was a nation of whiners, McCain said that Gramm didn’t speak for him. Which makes the fact that Gramm was, in fact, speaking for him at a meeting with the WSJ editorial board today all the more amusing.
After Gramm’s whiner comments, McCain campaign came out and explicitly stated that Phil Gramm does not speak for him, that he speaks for himself, and the media sighed and gushed, their heavy hearts lifted by the McMavericky straight talk.
Except, of course, the entire reason Gramm was speaking at the WSJ editorial board was to promote McCain’s economic policies.
McCain is so mavericky that he continues to use spokespeople he’s distanced himself from because of something they said. A regular person would have actually put some distance between him or herself and the spokesperson. How can you argue with maverickyness like that?
He was for Phil Gramm’s comments before he was against them.
We’ve reached this insane plateu of Obama bashing and old man fluffing. The only thing that matters is what Obama says. And then it must be picked apart. It’s pretty obvious the press is trying to keep this close – and that’s all about creating a news story to move product. If the MSM doesn’t have drama then they’re damn sure going to make it up.
McCain’s so mavericky he bucks his own campaign, and his own history.
by refusing to stick to a single position, he makes sure he can’t be boxed-in on any issue. and you can’t hit him because by the time you get around to taking a shot at him, he’s moved to some other position. and he’s a war hero!
Danny I think you’ve hit on something. If this election is a complete blowout, which by all rights it should be, what do they have to report on? Even our long-winded media can’t fill 4 months of air time talking about how brutally Obama is going to destroy McCain, followed by a month of how brutally Obama destroyed McCain. A savage ass beating, dramatic as it might be in its own right, is hard to puff up and add drama to.
But Obama is raked over the coals over what General Clark says about McCain.
D Mason, you’re dead on. Combine John’s earlier post about how bad this week was for McCain with Time’s Mark Halperin declaring this week a victory for McCain. When you list off all the dumb, self-inflicted shit McCain did to himself and then have someone like Halperin, who many journos look to for setting the conventional wisdom, it becomes obvious we’re not judging the candidates on the same terms.
worst mental image ive had today.
Who is the short, bald stranger there?
McMaverick is the name.
Ridin’ the campaign trail to who knows where,
Flub is his companion,
Fumblin’ is his game.
Smooth as the handle on a cane.
McMaverick is the name.
Wild as the wind in memory gone,
Blowin’ up his campaign,
Easier to flame.
Why not? McGaff could load up the airwaves for a dozen news cycles on this round of flubs alone. Talking heads would be yakking their pretty little faces off well into 2009 about the absolute blow-out epic super amazing unprecedented stunning Black Man Becomes President story.
The media didn’t have any trouble latching on to John Kennedy and playing him up as a media darling. They don’t have any trouble dog-slobbering along behind Bush and devoting days of coverage every time one of his daughters gets a new boyfriend.
And it isn’t like the world just doesn’t have any news to cover. Crazy as it sounds, the world does not revolve around election cycles. Other shit happens too. I’m a big enough news junkie to stay entertained from day to day following the latest breaking story. I fail to understand why the blogs can pump out content by the truckload while CNN has to spend half a dozen consecutive Situation Room sessions rehashing garbled clips from Jesse Jackson caught by a rival news network.
This has nothing to do with “keeping it close” or “maintaining a story worth covering”. The media is simply in the bag for McCain.
That’s been bothering me as well. I thought it was a given that Gramm is a McCain surrogate (another word that should be placed in the Souljah pile), which by something at least very close to definition means he speaks for John McCain. At least that’s the definition I infer when reading the McCain campaign’s whining about what Wesley Clark says.
So, to compare:
No one speaks for McCain except McCain. If McCain makes an error, his spokespeople can “clean up” what he says so it’s not an error. The media eats this up.
Obama speaks for Obama, but so does his wife, every advisor/spokesperson, any potential spiritual advisor, any democrat, and any African-American. But only if they say something controversial. If he disassociates himself from them or their comments, he has “thrown them under the bus”, because he has utilized a “Sister Souljah moment”, giving a “stab in the back” to whomever it is. This is clearly a “slap in the face” and means he is not a “maverick” and doesn’t meet the “Commander-in-chief threshold”, so despite his “rock star” talents, he’s just an “elitest”, playing “politics as usual”, giving us yet another “flip flop”. Why doesn’t he realize this election is about the “homeland”, you know, “Middle America”, he needs to appeal to “Reagan Democrats” with “family values”, “giving them the tools they need”. Obama can be a “change agent” if he can get “comfortable in his own skin”, you know, get people to “want to have a beer with him”, not just giving into “Wright-gate” or playing the “race card”, which leads this pundit to ask, “How will it play in Peoria?”. That’s how it’s done “my friends”.
Damn. Forgot “Pain at the Pump”. I hate that one…
Thanks for the list, John, the banned terms are kind of fun as Mad-Libs.
Here’s another candidate for Phrases Which Should Be Banned.
They’d have to file reports on why it looks like being such a blow-out year. Which would mean them asking uncomfortable questions about why the American electorate seems to have rejected the policies of El Residente and the GOP. Which would lead to even more uncomfortable questions about why they themselves spent the last 7 years cheerleading for the policies most Americans apparently cannot stomach.
In short, it would be tantamount to admitting that the DFHs were right, and the big brains of the Washington Beltway were wrong.
So, not going to happen. It would be an insult to John McCain’s integrity and mavericky heroism to even contemplate such heretical thoughts.
Fine by me.
I must say that watching McCampaign answers the question: What do you get when you take away Camp Bush’s message discipline?
The commercials should be interesting: “I’m John McCain and I approve this message, unless it offends someone in which case you never saw me. Forget. Foooorget…”
Phil Gramm is one of the biggest horse’s asses in the history of the human race. Line him up with great minds like Fred Thompson, and maybe Jesse Helms, and you have … well, you have exemplars of the political team that you used to play for, John.
Heh. Sorry, just had to say it for some reason. I have a sore throat and I am in a pissy mood.
The WSJ Editorial Board- now there’s a cabal of elitists for you. I won’t hold my breath for the MSM to give Gramm’s comments the same treatment they gave Wes Clark’s.