Great to be here (0.00 / 0)

On the last question first - I predict it will be one of the number one seeds.

But on to business. It's great to have this opportunity to have a conversation with the OpenLeft community. Let me take these one at a time:

We all know how much attention has been given to Jeremiah Wright, while the fact that McCain sought and got the endorsement of John Hagee - who believes that Katrina was God punishing New Orleans for a gay pride parade, and that the U.S. must invade Iran to hasten the coming of Armageddon - was virtually ignored. So too was his support from Rod Parsley (whom McCain called a "spiritual guide"), an out-an-out con man who says that if you send him your money, God will make you rich, and that he can heal babies born without brains (I'd recommend everyone read Sarah Posner's regular column at the American Prospect, The FundamentaList, for more on them and others). The question is, why?

I think the answer is that reporters just have different rules for McCain. When he panders to radical clerics, they know he doesn't really mean it. Whereas with other politicians, they look at things like that and say, "What a panderer!", with McCain they say, "I know how much he hates doing that, because he has such integrity. This is truly a terrible process."

On MLK, McCain is following a script he's played before. He puts the most politically dangerous thing in front of reporters (in this case, his prior opposition to an MLK holiday), with the knowledge that doing so will win him even more points with them for his forthrightness. It works every time.

Finally, on the NYT story about Vicki Iseman. Let's put aside the salacious aspect for the moment. The most critical part of that story was his relationship with Paxson Communications: $20K in contributions, flights around the country on their corporate jet, at the least a good friendship with their lobbyist. The chairman of the company asks McCain to intervene with the FCC, which he does (McCain first denied that this meeting ever took place, then had to admit that it had). This is almost a carbon copy of what got McCain in trouble in the Keating Five scandal. Yet there has been virtually no follow up from other news organizations. It just doesn't jibe with the story they've been telling about him for the last decade - that he's the reformer, he's the guy who stands up to the special interests, and so on.

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:12:39 PM UTC

A Layered Process??? (0.00 / 0)

From the book, I got the strong sense that this was both a synergistic process--a result of the three-fold foundation mentioned above, all reinforcing this desire to see McCain as some sort of knight in shinning armor, and a laying down, over time, of conventionalized ways of mediating contradictions--a couple of which you indicated in your answer.  But you didn't explicitly say it this way.  So I'm wondering if this is an accurate interpretation?  Or is something else going on?  Or would you describe it differently?

Just to make this a little more concrete--an example would be the way that journalists seem to have developed a groupthink rationalization, such as "I know how much he hates doing that, because he has such integrity. This is truly a terrible process."

Related to this, are these rationalizations vulnerable to attack in some way?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:22:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

It's many-faceted (4.00 / 1)

Yes, there certainly is kind of synergy going on - McCain knows exactly how to get reporters to like him, and in turn the groupthink to which they are extremely vulnerable just feeds the notion of him as something greater and grander than mere politicians. And the key arena where this happens is backstage. Here's an excerpt from the book:

While McCain is certainly capable of giving a good speech, the question raised by this passage is why reporters should consider the way McCain-or any candidate for that matter-acts "backstage" to be more important than the way he acts in more formal settings or when he is talking to voters. The answer is, precisely because the "backstage" is out of the public's view. This, supposedly, is where they can discern the "real" person behind the candidate. This is the place of privilege to which their press passes grant them access, where the public is not admitted and true insights can be gleaned. And this is where the most definitive judgments-those that color how a candidate is presented in the rest of the stories written about him-are made. This is where John McCain rose and the likes of Gore, Dean, and Kerry fell. It is not in the press conferences and speeches that McCain charmed reporters and other candidates came off as too rehearsed or careful or ambitious or prickly. It was in the back of the plane, in the van on the way to a fund-raiser, in the moments of downtime and casual conversation where McCain's work was accomplished.

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:29:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, Who Doesn't Crave A Backstage Pass??? (0.00 / 0)

More on the high school cool kidz/groupthink angle that never seems to fade....

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:32:18 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Mediating contradictions (0.00 / 0)

Sometimes you get the sense that the press' way of mediating contradictions about McCain is to stick their fingers in their ears and say, "Nanananana, I'm not listening!" But seriously, what it comes down to is often their vision of his pure heart. If he panders, well, that's just what he has to do in order to get the nomination, and it certainly doesn't reflect poorly on him, because we all know how much integrity he has. If he flip-flops, well, we'll just give him the benefit of the doubt that the reasons he cites are legitimate and sincere, because we know he's a man of such firm principle.

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:48:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Just a bit more on Keating Five (0.00 / 0)

What's important about the Keating Five scandal is how McCain turned it from a liability into an asset. On those rare occasions when it gets mentioned by reporters today, it's a story of redemption, akin to Bush's drinking: McCain had a youthful indiscretion, which turned him into the crusading reformer we see today. But the truth is that his behavior didn't change all that much, as the Paxson case makes clear. He's taken oodles of money over the years from corporations that  have interests before the Commerce Committee, which he used to chair and still sits on. And the number of corporate lobbyists with whom McCain is chummy is just stunning. Check out this cool chart we made detailing all the lobbyists who work for him - it's in the dozens, including most of the campaign's senior staff (campaign manager, deputy campaign manager, senior political strategist, chief fundraiser, etc.)

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:19:48 PM UTC

Yes, Chris Posted That Chart Here (0.00 / 0)

But folks really need to go to the original, because of its interactive features.

On a related matter--though you only touch on it in passing--his whole involvement with Indian affairs & Abramoff's various scams seems to positively reek of "investigation as coverup."  Do you have anything more to say about that?  I mean, clearly most reporters could care less about Native Americans.  But all that money....

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:26:57 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

On Abramoff (0.00 / 0)

McCain got a lot of credit for his Abramoff "investigation," but it was designed to give only half the story. He held hearings solely on the question of Abramoff's bilking the Indian tribes, but told his colleagues they had nothing to worry about - he wouldn't be investigating the recipients of all those contributions. He even admitted it, saying, "We stop
when we find out where the money went." So it wasn't as though he was fearlessly rooting out corruption.

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:33:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

But The Essence Of Corruption (0.00 / 0)

is that money goes somewhere and something is done in return.  If nothing is done, then there's no corruption.  Just an attempt to influence, at best.

If you don't investigate what's done in return, that's not really an investigation of corruption.  Isn't this a rather glaring disconnect???

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:38:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Partisan Alignments (0.00 / 0)

You include quite a number of almost hallucinatory quotes.  Several of them deal with the media's fantasy that they and McCain are brothers on a lonely crusade, equally opposed by both parties.

Could you talk a bit about this fantasy, and the role it's likely to play in this election campaign?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:30:27 PM UTC

Partisan alignments (0.00 / 0)

Around McCain, reporters might as well be saying, "He likes us! He really likes us!" This is absolutely critical to his strategy, convincing them that unlike all the other politicians, he likes them personally and respects what they do. It may well be sincere, but that's beside the point. What's important is what it produces. Here's another passage:

Yet as McCain set the stage for his 2008 presidential run, his relationship with the media showed few signs of changing. An effusive mash note by Newsweek's Howard Fineman in mid-2005 summed up the continuing state of bliss between the senator and the press. Dubbing that summer "McCain's Moment," Fineman not only declared that McCain was somehow not a Republican, but stated outright that McCain and the media are engaged in some sort of common political enterprise: "Here in your nation's capital, three parties roam the landscape these days: Dobson-Rove Republicans, Reid-Pelosi Democrats and McCain-Media Independents." Around the same time, a gushing profile of McCain appeared in the New Yorker titled "McCain's Party." Sebastian Mallaby, writing in the Washington Post weeks later, hailed "McCainism," which he defined as a commitment to "good government" that somehow only McCain holds, as the country's only hope for deliverance from the mediocrity of the two major political parties. Trudy Rubin of the Philadelphia Inquirer also hailed "McCainism," though she defined it as "a kind of straightforward authenticity."

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:38:45 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

McCain And Obama (0.00 / 0)

While Obama has also gotten remarkably favorable treatment from the press--particularly for a Democrat--there are clear signs (such as the Wright affair vs. the Hagee non-event) that the press treatment of the two is only similar compared to most other politicians, not compared to one another.  You give an example in the book, concerning lobbying reform, which also seems to have the same lesson.

Would you agree with this assessment?  

And if so,

(A) What is it likely to mean, should Obama be the nominee, as now seems almost certain?

(B) What might we be able to do to more effectively fight back?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:45:01 PM UTC

McCain and Obama (4.00 / 1)

There's no question Obama has gotten some good coverage, but he has also had some bad coverage. McCain, on the other hand, has had pretty much uninterrupted praise for the last twelve years or so. Reporters were certainly captivated initially by the Obama story - new and different face, terrific orator, creating grassroots movement, etc. But they were also taken with the Howard Dean story for a time, until they got tired of writing stories about this newfangled internet campaign.

The difference with McCain is that their affection for him is personal, and it colors everything they think about him.

The answer to your second question is that reporters need to be  encouraged to take a step back and examine what they've been doing. I'm not even sure that many of them realize that when they write that McCain is a "maverick" delivering "straight talk" they're nothing more than mouthpieces for his campaign, repeating the campaign's chosen words and phrases. They certainly don't want to think about themselves that way, but that's what they often are. They'd be ashamed of themselves if they wrote, "Barack Obama, who is offering change we can believe in, today campaigned in Scranton." But they write, "John McCain, the maverick Arizona senator, today took his Straight Talk Express to Canton" all the time.

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:59:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Good Point (0.00 / 0)

Using the parallelism to get at the lack of objectivity.

But I do think there's a slightly greater of similarity with Obama. It may not be personal, but there's definitely an element of the idea that he represents something inherently good that makes us inherently good if we recognize it.  This goes deeper than their fling with Dean, I think.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:07:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

St. John's halo (0.00 / 0)

Look forward to reading the book.

One explanation for the press's fawning over McCain which hasn't received much attention was the role of the Democrats in cementing St. John's maverick image by making him the top choice for Kerry's running mate in 2004.

Having had the maverick halo welded on by the Dems in 2004, it should be no surprise that the establishment press remains a captive to the narrative of McCain as a bipartisan straight shooter.  

Of course the Dems want to deny all this now, but their doing so smacks of an opportunism which voters seem to be seeing through, judging from the polls.

I'd be interested in your comments.

 

---

by: John Halle @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:46:56 PM UTC

On Kerry VP (0.00 / 0)

Exactly who said what in that incident is hard to tell, since everyone has a slightly different story. But it certainly served McCain well, since the very fact that Kerry was interested just reinforced the idea that McCain stands outside ideology and partisanship (despite the fact that he votes with the GOP around 85% of the time).  

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:52:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What if McCain loses? (0.00 / 0)

How do you think the media will react when(!) McCain is defeated in November?

---

by: Ted Kilvington @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 20:58:55 PM UTC

What if McCain loses? (4.00 / 1)

Judging from what happened in 2000, we could expect a lot of analysis along the lines of, "This man, this noble man, was in the end just too good for our sullied politics. Maybe the problem, in the end, was us - we just didn't deserve him."

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:02:50 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Doesn't Work? (0.00 / 0)

One thing that struck me from your analysis is that it suggests some sorts of responses that might prove successful with respect to other politicians are doomed to hit a brick wall with McCain.  And surely, this must be something that Media Matters has given a lot of thought to as well.

Do you have any suggestions about what sorts of criticism, although they might be valid, are less likely to be effective?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:02:59 PM UTC

What doesn't work? (0.00 / 0)

I don't know that there are particular arguments that are necessarily doomed. When I've talked to them about some of these things, I've had reporters say to me things like, "But he is a maverick!" That particular idea may be more ingrained in their thinking than anything, but that doesn't mean it's not worth arguing against.

The most difficult, and most important, argument to make is that the fact that John McCain has charmed your socks off doesn't mean you should be giving him a pass on just about everything. I think reporters do feel that they're judging him accurately. If they say over and over again how "authentic" he is, it must be because he really is authentic. The problem is that they're using the wrong criteria. If a candidate gets on the bus and is more open with you than his opponent, that doesn't necessarily mean he's more worthy.

That's something reporters need to understand: It's not about you. If McCain is refreshingly frank with reporters, then goes in front of voters and delivers a stream of simplistic talking points, what are you to conclude? That he's refreshing, or that he's just as phony as any other politician?  

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:15:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I Guess I'm Explicitly Suggesting (0.00 / 0)

something that you're saying implicitly.  Which is that it may be more effective to concede some points, rather than try a direct assault on some fronts.  That is, if reporters have invested themselves in his candidacy, then attacking him is attacking them.  So first one must draw distinctions--such as, "Yes he is frank and open with you, which is, in a theory, a good start.  But does he actually deliver the goods?  How are his simplistic non-solutions any better than anyone elses?"

In short, don't we need to be ever mindful of the need to drive a wedge between the reporters and McCain, just to create the sort of critical distance that ought to be there in the first place?

And if we don't do that, aren't we likely to shoot ourselves in the foot, and trigger their "we are all John McCain" self-defense mechanism?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:23:46 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Driving a wedge? (4.00 / 1)

It is, in the end, an attack on the press, and that's unavoidable. And we can concede that some of the things McCain does are things we would hope all candidates would do (they have power because he's the only one doing them). It would be good if every candidate shot the breeze with reporters for hours on end - the problem is the effect it has on reporters. For instance, one of the patented McCain techniques (and yes, it's a technique - he knows exactly what he's doing) is to bring up, without prompting, something he did wrong. Most politicians don't tell stories in which they aren't the hero. But instead of replying, "Boy, that story makes him look like a jerk - I'm going to make sure to include it in my article," the reporters say to themselves, "What an amazing guy! He's so open and honest! I just love him!"

So yes, when it comes to McCain, many of them have lost their perspective and their objectivity. And they should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for things like this.

Just as an aside, my favorite part of this story, as Jamison Foser pointed out, was the way so many reporters referred to the McCain Sedona compound - which includes a main house, a guest house, and a third house - as a "rustic cabin," as though it was one room with no electricity or indoor plumbing.

Which raises one other point: remember how so many reporters thought that the fact that John Kerry had a rich wife mean that he was some kind of emasculated sissy-boy who couldn't possibly connect with reg'lar folks? Well, I'm sure only a tiny proportion of Americans know that McCain's entire career has been financed by Cindy McCain, beer distribution heiress.  

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:35:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Targetting Our Own To Get The Message (4.00 / 1)

Yesterday, Mike Lux wrote here:

There are only two ways we can lose this race- although unfortunately both of them are very real problems right now.

The first, of course, is if this nomination fight gets so ugly that it spins out of control so much that there is no way for the divisions to heal. I don't think we are there yet by any means, but we could get there.

The second is that if, in the midst of the nomination battle, the Democratic Party and outside efforts (including organizations and the blogosphere) are unable to successfully define John McCain on our terms. This is a huge fear of mine simply because the big progressive donors who would normally support these kinds of efforts are really kind of checked out right now- they are frozen by the nomination race, not sure if they want to play if their candidate doesn't win. They also seem, in my conversations with them, appallingly mellow about the prospect of McCain, saying they don't think he's so bad compared with the other nominees the Republicans could have had.

Any thoughts particularly on how we might change these particular perceptions.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:32:25 PM UTC

Appalling mellowness (0.00 / 0)

That does bring up something we note in the book - that many liberals, and many conservatives, think John McCain is some kind of secret liberal. The New Republic was for many years an outpost of this thinking.

I think that's beginning to change as people take a closer look at McCain's actual agenda and worldview. You saw something similar with Rudy Giuliani - at the start of the primaries, lots of people on the left thought of him as a moderate, someone not nearly as bad as some of the other Republican candidates. But as they listened to him, it soon became clear that though Rudy may be (sort of) pro-choice, the idea of him with his finger on the button was positively terrifying.

Someone somewhere in the past few days (forgive me for not remembering where I read this) pointed out that the problem some of the hard-right conservatives have with McCain has nothing to do with policy, it's just about his manner. Though he grovels before them, he doesn't do it with quite enough enthusiasm for their taste. The opposite may have happened among some progressives - something in his manner suggests to them that he doesn't really hate them in the same way, say, Dick Cheney or Tom DeLay does, so they assume that underneath it all he's an ideological moderate whose policies won't be all that upsetting. But if you actually look at his record, you see there's nothing moderate about it. In some ways, he's even to the right of George W. Bush.

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:44:21 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

What Else Might Help Feed That Awareness??? (0.00 / 0)

I'm aware of so many things about McCain, but you have a much firmer grasp of the subtler interactions involved.

Any thoughts on what might be the most effective in altering folks perceptions in the current political environment?

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:53:47 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Awareness (0.00 / 0)

I think the blogosphere is going to play a big role in this (and don't forget, lots of reporters do read blogs). Right now, much of the attention of the progressive blogs is taken up by the Democratic race. Once that's over, they're going to be spending time telling the full story of John McCain. And the more people learn and think about him, the more likely they are to get beyond those simple, so often-repeated ideas - maverick, straight talker, etc. So I have no doubt that a few months from now, a log of progressives who right now find him fairly unobjectionable are going to decide they really don't like him.  

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 21:59:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Well, Your Book Is Certainly Going To Be A Great Help In That Regard! (0.00 / 0)

I want to stress again that we've barely scratched the surface here in this discussion, so people really should go out, buy this book, and study it chapter and verse, because it really does a great job of taking you inside the press mindset, illustrating how that works, where it has come from, and what the weaknesses are.  There is, quite simply, nothing else like it that I've seen.

So I want to thank you once again, both for writing it, and for spending time here answering questions.

"You know what they say -- those of us who fail history... doomed to repeat it in summer school." -- Buffy The Vampire Slayer, Season 6, Episode 3

---

by: Paul Rosenberg @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 22:06:03 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Now I remember! (0.00 / 0)

Here's the piece I was referencing, by the always-terrific Rick Perlstein. Read it - it's great stuff.

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 22:02:25 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks! (0.00 / 0)

Just want to thank everyone who read and commented. This is obviously a discussion we're going to be continuing in the coming months.

Paul

---

by: WaldmanPaul @ Sat Apr 05, 2008 at 22:03:42 PM UTC