I don't think that straight talk is "bad" per say, but McCain's brand of authenticity just reveals what a weak candidate he is. If he doesn't have the political smarts to at least gracefully fudge a question when he gets "forgetful" (snort) about his voting record, then MAYBE HE IS TOO INEPT TO BE PRESIDENT!
More spin from Politico, and my angry comments on it. I know that it is Politico and they are RW hacks, but I feel this is the consistent perspective of the media in general. Politco article in quotes, followed by my individual responses.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0708/McCains_access_conundrum.htmlMcCain's Access Conundrum
Johnathan Martin
"Phil Gramm's off-message remarks clouded McCain's campaign re-start this week, but a longer-range challenge continues to plague the GOP nominee: how to reconcile a well-honed brand that is defined by a free-wheeling candidate who takes on all comers, citizens and reporters alike, with the need to drive a consistent, coherent message.
The LA Times and WSJ both have good pieces up recapping McCain's less-than-stellar week, but the specifics are less important than the underlying thread through both stories.
For McCain to be McCain, he has to be surrounded by voters in town halls and reporters on his bus. After a period of doing more prepared speeches and limiting national press access, they've gone back to this original recipe."
from me: I'm so sick of hearing what "lets McCain be McCain", or like Peggy Noonan "Just let McCain be McCain!" McCain can't have it both ways. If he wants to have it both ways - market himself as a "straight talker"- he has to realize that his straight talk often exposes him for who he really is, and I've NEVER found it to be as charming as reporters obviously do. And I remember reading earlier in the week that McCain had restricted their access, and some people here wondered if the media paying more attention to his gaffes as a means of payback for restricted access.(well, "more attention" than he usually gets, though its been very disproportionate to me, despite someone here telling me here the other day that McCain and Obama get exactly the same kind of media treatment). So, its back to open reporters policy, or are they going to continue to restrict access?
"The Viagra question, referenced in both the LA Times and WSJ, would likely have not had the same resonance back then, before every media outlet had a blog that constantly needed to be filled with a new news nugget and cable news networks were equally voracious in scarfing up the titillating soundbyte of the moment"
The media cannot get away with marginalizing it as a viagra question- it was a question about birth control. And even if it WAS a question about viagra, so what? Is he twelve years old? It raised so many legitimate questions...if his campaign had staked so much hope on getting disillusioned former Hillary supporters, wouldn't it have been a good idea for his handlers to drill him on a better response to a spectrum of questions regarding birth control, considering many of these women were pro-choice? His "three extra months" that he had to campaign while Hillary and Obama battled it out, he could not have "reviewed" his voting record on issues that are of particular female concern? Since many Hillary supporters preferred her because of her health care plan, shouldn't he have at least planned on a way to justify his shitty health care plan/record on health care coverage? Was it simply that he was caught with one of his major surrogates trying to pass off a stance of his in an effort to gain female voters that did not exist, that his voting record completely contradicted? And Jonathan Martin is as dismissive about the relevence of this question and response as John McCain is. As Campbell Brown (shockingly, since she's usually horrible) put it, he treated it as if it was not a legitimate question. Poor McCain, he wants to hobnob with reporters, but does not want accountability for the FEW times that they actually do their job? The media is soundbyte driven, often unfairly, but this isn't one of those times.
"The problem for McCain, however, is that his style is inherently ill-suited for this media era. He can stay relentlessly on message -- which, given his impulsive persona, is itself a challenge -- and still suffer from the one stray comment he makes on the bus or in response to a question unrelated to his topic of the day. But if he is forced behind a podium and denied interaction with reporters, his most attractive traits are obscured."
I agree that McCain is not an attractive candidate behind the podium, but he is a disgustingly inadequate candidate when he lets "McCain be McCain" as well. I don't give a fuck about the "authenticity" of the product (though I would very much disagree with the reporters who use this as McCain's selling point), when the product sucks. Their version of "McCain" no LONGER EXISTS! It ceased to exist when he became the nominee...he is no longer the underdog who got beat up in South Carolina, he is the man who has hired those who beat up on him in South Carolina.
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
