The Higher Straight Talk

In the Republican debate I watched, John McCain repeatedly savaged Mitt Romney. McCain almost never questioned the merits of any of Romney's policy positions, but rather repeatedly slagged on Romney's character suggesting, accurately, that Romney is a liar who's changed his positions repeatedly on a whole variety of issues in a manner that suggests he's basically a bad person. But of course whatever happens is good for John McCain so the way Mark Halperin reports it is that "To his advantage, he stayed above the fray."

As Lemieux says the striking thing here is that just sentences later Halperin acknowledges that this is BS and McCain "seemed to relish his engagement with Romney over immigration, slipping in a sharp jab over his rival’s fortune, and got in another zinger by twisting Romney’s message of change into a glib attack on the governor’s flipflopping history."

The Powers of Straight Talk are, indeed, great.

To me the very strange thing about this is that while McCain's attacks on Romney were mostly accurate, the overall approach was ludicrously unfair. McCain, like Mitt Romney, drifted pretty far left for a Republican during the 2002-2003 period and McCain, like Mitt Romney, started furiously backpedaling during 2006-2007 in a desperate bid to become President of the United States. The idea of the one attacking the other as a flip-flopper is ludicrous and the fact that McCain did it while wearing a vicious snarl that he'd then transform into a disingenuous grin after unleashing a zinger didn't strike me as especially endearing. Then again, I guess you just can't make it as a real big-time pundit until you fall spell to the Lure of the Straight Talk and see that when McCain changes his views or spouts nonsense or whatever that that's just all part of the Higher Straight Talk.

Comments

The press will work incredibly hard to anoint McCain the next President. He's a war hero who always tells the truth, don't you know.

I don't know if the ragtag band of inbred sociopaths, religious nuts, and rich tax duckers who make up the modern GOP will get the message in time, though.

Posted by HeavyJ | January 6, 2008 12:26 PM

I heart Mitt because he had the courage to defend health insurance mandates.

Posted by Petey | January 6, 2008 12:33 PM

MY:
What do you expect? The TradMed was in full blown fluffer role on Thursday before the caucuses even took place. I mean McCain finished fourth behind a guy that is even more comatose than he is. If you think the Smirk looks like a beaten dog, McCain looks much worse. And Joe Klein, Mark Halperin and et al think he is Presidential? As Glenn Greenwald(and Digby too) has documented again and again the media are like the Kool Kidz in HS and it's no way to run a country.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | January 6, 2008 12:35 PM

Hillary Clinton's getting no traction against Obama in the competition to be the agent of change the country clearly wants. I can't imagine McCain would do any better. No amount of free passes from reporters is going to overcome his image as, well, old and cranky. Watch Frank Lutz's focus group on last night's Democratic debate and try to imagine how McCain would do in a debate against Obama. No chance.

Honestly, I think Huckabee's the Republicans' best bet against Obama. I think he'd lose too, but he's the only one I see who'd have a shot as a campaigner against him.

[I know I'm jumping the gun, there's a long way to go, Feb. 5th, yada yada. I'm going out on this limb: the Democratic primary is over.]

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 6, 2008 12:42 PM

"I know I'm jumping the gun, there's a long way to go, Feb. 5th, yada yada. I'm going out on this limb: the Democratic primary is over."

It's not going to be over until Obama shows he can draw older votes. He didn't do that in IA, and so far, he's not doing it in the NH polling.

You can win 40% in every primary and not be the nominee, y'know...

Posted by Petey | January 6, 2008 12:47 PM

McCain, like Mitt Romney, drifted pretty far left for a Republican during the 2002-2003 period

His heterodox record on campaign finance, fiscal policy, the role of social conservatives in the party, and immigration long predates 2002. He hasn't really changed his stripes since then; he just tries to talk about war all the time.

Posted by right | January 6, 2008 12:52 PM

MY, again with the awesome howler blogging!!!

Keep this up, I'm going to send you a big bag of cookies or something.

Go Matt!

Posted by Chuck | January 6, 2008 12:52 PM

Petey, can you sight where you are getting your numbers from. I remember reading somewhere that he held serve or even won the older crowd by a bit, but that he won the youth by a lot. I searched for anyone who actually had a table of the results broken down by age, but I can't find one for the life of me.

Posted by socratic_me | January 6, 2008 12:59 PM

Time is getting screwed. Halperin is just the middle man - they should simply take the faxes from Rove right off the fax machine and print em.

Really, how, how did Halperin get such an elevated rep in D.C.? I know that city is full of dim bulbs who praise each other's dim bulb brilliance, but Halperin is surely one of the dimmest. Oh well - in a world that thinks William Kristol was 'damned prescient" about the surge, as the white supremecy enabler at Slate, Jack Shafer, says, I guess Halperin must seem like genius. Matt, the field you've chosen to conquer is composed of mental midgets. That might get tedious in the long run. Have you thought about that?

Posted by roger | January 6, 2008 1:05 PM

The press corpse simply sucks, and they will be first against the wall...

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | January 6, 2008 1:20 PM

I don't usually get to watch Am. tv, but I just caught MTP here and watched McCain. Can someone tell me, was it just a weird camera angle, or is there something wrong with his left cheek? It seemed distended, overly jowly.

I couldn't stop focussing on it!

Posted by KathyF | January 6, 2008 1:23 PM

"Petey, can you sight where you are getting your numbers from."

Google for the Iowa entrance poll, if you want all the data.

Here's Obama's percentages across age groups in Iowa.

57% 17-29
42% 30-44
27% 45-64
18% 65 & up

The numbers look similar in New Hampshire.

Obama came in third in Iowa among all voters over 30. Think about that one for a bit.

He's not going to be able to get up to 50% without getting old folks comfortable with him.

Obama's definitely in the catbird seat at the moment, but folks who are planning their convention parties may be getting a bit ahead of themselves. There are still some very real questions about how and if he can get from here to there.

I'd expect the very skin color / foreign heritage stuff which endears Obama to young folks is scaring away old folks.

This may end up being a much longer nomination race than anyone is currently speculating about. I can easily see this lasting past 2/5. (Though it's certainly not out of the question that Obama is able to seal the deal with the fogies quicker.)

-----

One odd thing is that none of the three candidacies seem to feel it's in their interests to talk about the generation gap, so they're not pushing it reporters, and therefore no one is really writing about it.

Posted by Petey | January 6, 2008 1:36 PM

KathyF
try focusing on the fact that the guy is a war hero and got his ass tortured for YEARS, you think that might have something to do with "jowls", you disrespectful piece of....

Posted by Mark Baker | January 6, 2008 1:39 PM

I wonder if anyone will bring up McCain's negotiations with Dashle about becoming a Democrat?

Posted by thinga | January 6, 2008 1:41 PM

You can say a lot of things about Mark Halperin. But the main thing you can say about him is that he is an idiot.

Posted by jim | January 6, 2008 1:46 PM

>>and got his ass tortured for YEARS

I think you mean "got an enhanced interrogation for YEARS." And, anyway, the North Vietnamese Jack Bauer was just trying to save Vietnamese lives. You can understand that, can't you?

Posted by jim | January 6, 2008 2:06 PM

This may end up being a much longer nomination race than anyone is currently speculating about. I can easily see this lasting past 2/5. (Though it's certainly not out of the question that Obama is able to seal the deal with the fogies quicker.)

I don't foresee Obama having a big problem sealing the deal. The experience rationale that Clinton was (dubiously) running has a natural appeal to older voters, but she dropped that like a rock and embraced the amazingly vague "change" rationale. Given that, and since there doesn't seem to be a real bread and butter issue on which Obama would be uniquely bad for older voters, I think they'll hop on the bandwagon.

My own fogeyish parents are coming around to him. He gives a good talk.

Posted by southpaw | January 6, 2008 2:13 PM

Ok, I shouldn't say Clinton dropped experience like a rock. She's tried to cling to it and simultaneously in a very unconvincing way.

"Ready for Change."

"I've been fighting for change for 35 years running!"

"Ready to be President on the First Day . . . . uh, for Change!!"

I don't think that'll play with anyone--fogey or non.

Posted by southpaw | January 6, 2008 2:19 PM

McCain had a serious growth removed from his face a couple of years ago (can't recall if it was malignant or not). I look forward to the day when the press ignores a candidate's physical appearance or the way s/he laughs or how good the hair looks, but we ain't there yet, at least not for Democratic candidates.

McCain's face and Rudy's lisp are off limits for the MSM but by God, we can snicker all we want about Hillary's cleavage.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | January 6, 2008 2:20 PM

Thanks, BryklynLibrul, I wondered if I'd missed a news piece about his cancer recurring. (God forbid--I wouldn't wish that horror on anyone.) I remember he was diagnosed with skin cancer shortly after he dropped out of the 2000 race. Like I said, I rarely watch TV and wondered if I was the only one who'd noticed it.

Posted by KathyF | January 6, 2008 2:29 PM

"Obama came in third in Iowa among all voters over 30. Think about that one for a bit."

Fair enough. While I am, think about the fact that Obama got 57% of the 17-29 vote in what turned out to be a three-way race, and that that vote turned out big time.

Then think about whether Edwards' votes go to Clinton or to Obama after he drops out. The answer seemed pretty clear last night.

Like I said, I'm going out on a limb a bit, but I think this is like the 1980 race in that Reagan mainly -- almost solely -- had to prove that he was "electable," albeit in a different sense. Once he did, it was over. Similarly, I think enthusiasm for Obama has always been much higher than it has been for Clinton (and higher, though not as much so, as it has been for Edwards), but held back by people not being convinced that he could actually win. With that barrier busted in a big way in Iowa, I think that enthusiasm will carry the day, and rather shockingly easily.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 6, 2008 2:33 PM

"The experience rationale that Clinton was (dubiously) running has a natural appeal to older voters, but she dropped that like a rock and embraced the amazingly vague "change" rationale. Given that, and since there doesn't seem to be a real bread and butter issue on which Obama would be uniquely bad for older voters, I think they'll hop on the bandwagon."

But he's still polling lousy as you go up the age cohort in NH.

Obama has no problem getting up to 40% as things stand. But you don't win the nomination unless you can scale up to a majority.

Maybe the old folks really will end up hopping on the bandwagon. I honestly don't know. But until they do, given the delegate selection and convention rules, this race simply won't come to an end.

I still think there's a decent possibility that Obama is Gene McCarthy. And if so, there is a Hubert Humphrey and a Bobby Kennedy waiting to pick over his carcass after 2/5.

This is a very bad cycle for inevitable candidates.

Posted by Petey | January 6, 2008 2:36 PM

"Then think about whether Edwards' votes go to Clinton or to Obama after he drops out. The answer seemed pretty clear last night."

If John Edwards dropped dead tomorrow, Obama would lose this race.

There's a reason the Edwards and Obama campaigns are aligned right now, y'know.

It works for Edwards by trying to push Clinton to the margins.

And it works for Obama, because if he faced a two way race with Clinton immediately, she could consolidate the demographics that are - at least momentarily - unavailable to Obama. If Obama can't get up to 50%, but can get up to 40%, a three way race is his salvation.

Both Edwards and Obama need Edwards in the race right now.

I'd guess Team Obama's plan is to stick around long enough as the topic of conversation for old folks to get comfortable with him. It's a reasonable plan, but who knows if it's going to work.

Posted by Petey | January 6, 2008 2:46 PM

In the "I feel your pain" box, of course- there's 'Arthur Branch' sanguine as a fat cat about oil company mega-greed. Let them eat roach spray is pretty much the attitude of everyone but the Huck and Paul with a few sops thrown in by Mitt.

Re the barrage coming Mitt's way- Christ, The Great Mormon Hope's got nuthin'. It's not enough to be rich, good-looking, a captain of finance and job growth. You actually have to be able to stand your ground. I don't see him going anyplace but down for the count.

In that department, as much as McCain's a liar, a Lieberman-approved genocidal menace he can put a hurt on you.

Posted by Trevor | January 6, 2008 3:02 PM

But he's still polling lousy as you go up the age cohort in NH.

Petey, they're old. If my dad had gone down to the basement for more wine when they announced the Iowa results, he'd just be getting back to the couch now. Obama's victory--and the sudden realness of his prospects--happened just moments ago for someone who doesn't have the internet and doesn't obsess about politics over the weekend. Of course it will take a little time for older voters to process Obama. But I'd wager the age stratification will fade into irrelevance by February 5th.

Posted by southpaw | January 6, 2008 3:14 PM

Regardless of how Edwards pushes Clinton (and I agree with you there), the key question seems to me, if it's a two person race (Obama vs. Clinton), where do the Edwards votes go? At least 55/45 Obama is my guess. In other words, once Edwards is out, Obama will have no problem getting well over 50%.

I see you're hanging on to the older vote as Clinton's firewall / Obama's downfall. I'll stick with my position that Clinton's chance of success relied all along on her maintaining a sense of inevitability, and that that sense is already cracked and is now ready to break irreparably when she loses in New Hampshire.

Seriously, she loses this one and it's over. I'm not sure it's fair, but even most of her supporters don't like her. They respect her, and figured she was a winner. Without the latter, she's done.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 6, 2008 3:21 PM

"if it's a two person race (Obama vs. Clinton), where do the Edwards votes go?"

I'll say this really slowly, since you seem to be experiencing a senior moment: at this point in time, the old folks would go to Clinton. The young folks would go to Obama. And you'd likely lose the race.

That may shift as Obama settles in on in the public. Or it may not.

"I see you're hanging on to the older vote as Clinton's firewall / Obama's downfall. I'll stick with my position that Clinton's chance of success relied all along on her maintaining a sense of inevitability, and that that sense is already cracked and is now ready to break irreparably when she loses in New Hampshire."

I'm not in the Clinton camp. I'd be happy to see Clinton with a stake driven through her political heart.

Posted by Petey | January 6, 2008 3:33 PM

My vote is with Mitt Romney!!! America would be fortunate to have him as our next President. The media is liberal, and Romney is the biggest threat to the other candidates. McCain and Huckabee are libs, that's why they get the pass from the Democrats and the paper. Huckabee won on religion, being a populist (not good = big government, loss of freedom), and personality. He doesn't know the issues. I found both McCain and Huckabee to be mean-spirited.

Posted by Debrar | January 6, 2008 3:33 PM

Petey, it's not just older voters, it's Edwards voters. Say it as slow as you want, I don't see Edwards voters as a whole going more for Clinton than for Obama.

Even if those voters were as uncertain about Obama as you are...do you really think they'd just go vote for Clinton instead? [You wouldn't.] I don't see any evidence to support that.

In any case, I'm 36, so if in the future you'd prefer to mock me rather than engage me in respectful disagreement (I understand what you're saying; I just disagree, and am telling you why), perhaps it would be more accurate to mock my impending middle age.

Posted by mrsaturdaypants | January 6, 2008 5:41 PM

KathyF
try focusing on the fact that the guy is a war hero and got his ass tortured for YEARS, you think that might have something to do with "jowls", you disrespectful piece of....
Posted by Mark Baker

Mark Baker is one of the ignorant worshippers of the Cult of Victimhood so many have been trapped in recently. McCain has milked his POW status to get into the Senate, get out of the Keating 5 scandal, justify running for President on being owed it for suffering, and of course, reason #1 why the media fawns over it's POW hero...who did what the media thinks is the highest of military heroism - Getting caught by the enemy. Though for reasons related to temperment and moral code, it wasn't enough to stop the Navy from passing him over for Admiral and wishing him well on his post-Naval career in 1981.

As it turns out, all Mark has to do is flip a website on McCain open to know his facial apearance was wholly normal on his release from the Vietnamese.
His face began to take on that appearance after cancer surgery for malignant melanoma in 1993, 2001, and 2002. It's "left-side bloated" look comes not from a huge new tumor mass (melanoma that large would have broken through the skin and spread elsewhere in stage 4), but from McCain having all the lymph glands and ducts in that area removed, making fluid drainage a problem. Another thing that might be in play is his use of steroids or hormones to prevent melanoma recurrance, as his right jowl is also slightly bloated.

His cancer, appearance, age (he would be the oldest presidential candidate running in an eerie echo of the 1996 election of old war hero Dole and the old Order running against young Bill Clinton who had no military service) are legitimate topics of discussion.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 6, 2008 7:40 PM

Chris Fraud, why are you so scummy? Are you competing the world's most scummy title? I guess so.

Posted by Jennifer | January 6, 2008 8:08 PM

I think thinga is right. It's strange that Romney hasn't brought up McCain's negotiations with Daschle to jump ship in the Senate and his talks with Kerry over being added to Kerry's ticket.
That sort of stuff doesnt go over too well in la-la land.

Posted by NYT | January 6, 2008 10:17 PM

Chris Fraud, why are you so scummy? Are you competing the world's most scummy title? I guess so.
Posted by Jennifer | January 6, 2008 8:08 PM

Hey little Jenny,
Chis may hit hard and dirty, but it doesn't mean he's inaccurate.
Lay off.

Posted by Northern Observer | January 7, 2008 2:37 PM