Kristof's Crystal Ball

To me, John McCain's habit of switching positions on many issues over the years makes it difficult to tell what, if anything, he really thinks about these matters. It seems, though, that a superior journalist like Nicholas Kristof gets to write for The New York Times op-ed page because he does have a solid read on what McCain really believes. What reportorial technique did he use to ferret out the truth? Telepathy! Thus, Kristof is sure that "With the arrival of the primaries, he has moved to the right on social issues and pretended to be more conservative than he is." Basically, "McCain truly has principles that he bends or breaks out of desperation and with distaste." How does Kristof know this? Telepathy! Then Kristof runs down the considerable evidence that McCain is an enormous jerk and concludes that:

McCain himself would probably acknowledge every one of these flaws, and he is a rare politician with the courage not just to follow the crowd but also to lead it. It is refreshing to see that courage rewarded by voters.

McCain himself would acknowledge these flaws if what? If he wasn't running for President? What kind of courage is that? I have know idea under which circumstances, if ever, McCain would acknowledge flaws that he has not, in fact, acknowledged. But the overwhelmingly relevant fact about McCain's flaws would seem to me to be their existence. Acknowledging flaws, after all, doesn't make them go away. And of course McCain hasn't even acknowledged them! But if things were different, he would, which would be courageous, so we should be glad McCain is getting close to the White House.

Comments

What is it about pundits whose name starts with "Kris"?
The "liberal" media are going to do their best to fellate their hero "Go F yourself!" McCain right into the WH. Did you see the love letter to him in the latest Time mag?

Posted by Gore/Edwards 08 | February 18, 2008 9:20 AM

Still, as a liberal democrat, I like McCain. Always have. He has been in the public eye for long enough that we know him pretty well. He cannot be easily pidgeon holed. He really does act independent of his party even while proclaiming loyalty to it's principles. Got to respect that.

McCain will win a lot of democratic votes as a grown up alternative to Obama. The press loves him. I guess he has earned their respect over the years of straight talk. He has the independents pretty much in his corner and the republicans will support him in the end.

Get used to a McCain presidency. Thank you Matt.

Posted by ken | February 18, 2008 9:35 AM

Even with all his warts, I used to defend McCain as one of the good guys. But his vote on the torture bill just did it for me. Sullivan had a great line on this:

while McCain isn't much good at pandering, he's no great shakes at being principled either

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | February 18, 2008 9:40 AM

Arizona is to the Wild West what South Carolina is to the Confederacy. Today, the AZ Senate debates SB1214, a bill to allow concealed weapons inside SCHOOLS!

Somewhere, there must be a reporter who could ask Straight Talk McCain whether he supports this nonsense.

Posted by Aatos | February 18, 2008 9:41 AM

I read Kristof's column yesterday and nearly gagged on my Wheaties. God, he's such a moron. I realized I hadn't missed him at all while he was away.

One thing I'll give McCain: he knows how to bewitch enough "liberal Democrats" into suspending even an iota of critical thinking about his voting record, his policy flip-flops, his personal flaws (temper, adultery); and above all else, his vile narcissism. "Not easily pigeonholed" . . . "loyalty to principles" . . . "he's earned respect for years of straight talk" -- stoopit, stoopit, stoopit.

Posted by BryklynLibrul | February 18, 2008 9:45 AM

We now know the Clinton playbook for winning: 1996. Remember "Dole-Gingrich"? Schumer used "Bush-McCain" on MTP.

Posted by Klug | February 18, 2008 9:54 AM

I don't no whether you type homonyms on purpose, but "I have know idea" is excellent.

I wonder if "know" was floating in your mind as part of, say, "I don't know" then snuck out your fingers.

Posted by Robert Waldmann | February 18, 2008 9:57 AM

I saw the same typo as Robert ("know" instead of "no") and was wondering whether you blog with a voice-entry system (or whatever those damn things are called--Dragon Naturally Speaking or the like).

"Know" is such an uncommon typo for "no"--the other way around would be more common--and dictation software would explain this.

And, yes, apparently I have too much time on my hands this morning--no other explanation for spending 3 meandering sentences on the implications of a typo.

Posted by Jim | February 18, 2008 10:12 AM

I just thought of a good joke.

"Do you think the press will hold McCain to the same standard that they did Gore?"

A sure-fire knee slapper.

As for "ken" (and his elk) up above, I don't believe you're a liberal democrat.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 18, 2008 10:18 AM

As for "ken" (and his elk) up above, I don't believe you're a liberal democrat.

Well, he could just be uninformed or an idiot. People are rarely aware of the biases they're subjected to. After years of being told by the media that McCain is a great guy, you start to believe it without even realizing why. When you look at McCain you could see an ornery old man who protects the interests of the privileged and rich while failing to cater to their hierarchy b/c he's angry that he's not at the top. Or you see a guy who represents the 'principles' of the Republican party while not marching in lock step with the party. But if you've been mind-fucked by the media for the last decade, you'll probably believe the latter.

Then again, why would a liberal democrat vote for a guy true to republican principles? Respect? Maybe Jeffrey Davis had it right...

Posted by mpowell | February 18, 2008 10:31 AM

Sure I am a liberal democrat. Have been all my life. If you pay attention and do some research on McCain you will find out that he is not the ogre many people think. I think he will do right by the presidency and by our country. I see McCain as the clear better choice over Obama.

I am a liberal which means I strongly oppose cults or having messianic figures run for office. So it's a simple fact that I will never vote for Obama.

Posted by ken | February 18, 2008 10:33 AM

McCain has the principles and courage to have fallen on his knees before George W. Bush despite Bush's vicious smear campaign against him in 2000.

McCain has the principles and courage to "lead the battle" against torture, only to vote AYE on the Military Commissions Act and NAY on last week's bill curtailing the CIA's license to torture.

McCain has the principles and courage not to "surrender" in Iraq but to soldier on for 100 years in a misbegotten and bloody disaster. Yet he surrendered to Bush in 4.

It's going to be a long year.

Posted by Lucy | February 18, 2008 10:37 AM

The Mighty John McCain: he actually has the courage to follow the crowd.

This recalls one of JFK's bon mots that went something like this: "Let us not be like the Frenchman who said, 'There goes the crowd. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.'"

On my reading, ol' Jack Kennedy appears to be calling McCain French.

Posted by Junius Brutus | February 18, 2008 10:42 AM

I think you always should go into an election with the view that the candidate of the opposing party is a political opponent, not an enemy. Having McCain as the Republican candidate does make this easier for me: he'd have made a much better President in 2001 than the current incumbent for example.

He would make a much worse President than either of his two likely opponents on the Democratic ticket, and it's for Democrats to make that case. They won't have a lot of help from TV, radio or newspaper reporters/pundits, although my guess is Obama will carry much less bagagge initially than Clinton might. Still McCain Rules will operate: he is too a maverick, he is too principled, he is too a straight shooter - who do you believe, him or your lying eyes and ears?

Bush-McCain is a fairly strong response. "Bring it on," as someone mentioned in another context.

Posted by Andrew | February 18, 2008 11:02 AM

Kristof says McCain himself would probably acknowledge every one of these flaws

I think Kristof meant "...if you asked him."

Posted by nbt | February 18, 2008 11:26 AM

I am a liberal which means I strongly oppose cults or having messianic figures run for office. So it's a simple fact that I will never vote for Obama.
Posted by ken | February 18, 2008 10:33 AM

You really do swallow every bit of bullshit that the media ladles out, don't you, Ken? Must be nice to be so blissfully, fucking stupid.

Posted by commie atheist | February 18, 2008 11:37 AM

It's hard to resist ken's persuasive powers. Saying things like "I think he will do right by [insert platitude filler here]" and "I strongly oppose cults" is enough to turn me off to the Messiahma.

Posted by eriks | February 18, 2008 11:46 AM

Now that Pappa Bush has endorsed St. John, the Bush-McCain line is easier to draw.

Posted by mike in pr | February 18, 2008 11:55 AM

Now that Pappa Bush has endorsed St. John, the Bush-McCain line is easier to draw.

Posted by mike in pr | February 18, 2008 11:55 AM

I'm certain that regular blog-readers will be seeing many more McCain-loving reactionaries masquerading as "liberals" over the next nine months, but those same "liberals", when pressed, will be stumped when asked for McCain's liberal bona fides. Most recently McCain promised no new taxes and no tax increases during a McCain administration (Shades of Bush the elder). Whether he truly means this or is a fibbing paderer I'll let others decide, but whichever the case, this leaves us with open-ended war in the Middle East paid for by China, and that's not a policy change at all.

Posted by Johnson's Dog | February 18, 2008 12:02 PM

Lmao, by November McCain will be a cartoon who sings 'bomb-Iran' songs and wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years.

Well, to be most honest, he already is that cartoon. By November, Obama will just make sure everyone but the media knows it.

Posted by Soullite | February 18, 2008 12:10 PM

As a true Republican conservative, I will be voting for either Hillary or Obama, whichever one gets the nomination. Why? Because John McCain is an older version of George Bush. He will continue the same failed policies of the past 8 years. There isn't a conservative principle that this band of corporate criminals hasn't broken.

And the best reason? I get to cancel Ken the liberal's vote.

Posted by Innocent Bystander | February 18, 2008 12:11 PM

"Still, as a liberal democrat, I like McCain."

Then you are a not a "liberal" Democrat. By definition, a "liberal" Democratic would not like a "centrist" Republican that is to the right on every issue that would matter to a "liberal" Democrat.

Posted by Parrotlover77 | February 18, 2008 12:12 PM

I can only assume Ken is joking or heavily self-medicated. I actually did vote for McCain in the Wisconsin primary in 2000, largely because the interesting Democratic races were decided. Yeah, the Republican race was already decided then too, but McCain was running against the religious right...

But since then he's sucked up so hard to Bush, the Pat Robertsons of the world, and movement conservatives that I just don't see how anybody can take him seriously. On the left or on the right.

Posted by mwg | February 18, 2008 12:21 PM

McCain switched his position on abortion, but wont even admit that he switched his position! (During the 2000 campaign he claimed he didn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade, now he says he does). At least Romney admits he switched his position. McCain actually does the opposite of admitting his shortcomings. This is maybe the worst Op-Ed piece I have ever read.

Please visit my blog, http://www.standingbeforethefire.com for more of McCain's dishonesty.

Posted by Mr. Sifter | February 18, 2008 12:30 PM

KRISTOF (2/17/08): His most famous pander came in 2000, when, after earlier denouncing the Confederate flag as a ''symbol of racism,'' he embraced it as ''a symbol of heritage.'' To his credit, Mr. McCain later acknowledged, ''I feared that if I answered honestly I could not win the South Carolina primary, so I chose to compromise my principles.''

When it no longer mattered, he said that he’d lied. This helped show how honest he is! This presentation was often made back in April 2000.

According to Kristof, McCain lied about ethanol this time around. But this also proves how honest he is! If you doubt it, go ahead—just read this latest sad column.

http://dailyhowler.com/

Posted by Wil Burns | February 18, 2008 12:36 PM

As a libertarian and a patriot, I stand against anybody who promotes wars, foreign entanglements, government surveillance and torture. I am amazed how easily these values slid into Republican talking points without even a word of protest. Instead, the Right now appears to be fighting about whether it is more virtuous to oppose abortions or tax cuts. Any liberal who would vote for McCain 2008 is just plain unprincipled.

Posted by z adura | February 18, 2008 12:59 PM

Ken "liberal dem" Troll...

You sir, are either a liar or an utterly deluded brain dead excuse for a human being...

Repeating Republican talking points about "straight talking" McCain and the "cult like" followers of Obama paint you for what you really are...a Republican Troll.

Go away and STFU and stop lying to the posters here about yourself!

Posted by wagonjak | February 18, 2008 1:00 PM

Kristof is blessed with the ability to spot Teh Authentic.

This is very, very close to telepathy. Except that one skill is a staple of wishful thinking in genre fiction built around elaborate fantasies of how things could be in an insular parallel universe, an unrealistic genre combining action and social analysis, favored by people who were unpopular in high school.

The other is a concept from science fiction.

Posted by Chris | February 18, 2008 1:05 PM

Let me get this straight:

Kristoff says we should cut McCain some slack because he had to pander during the primaries.

But we should also admire him because is a leader who won't pander to popular opinion.

Ok, got it.

Posted by McKingford | February 18, 2008 1:10 PM

McCain may be one of the "better" Republicans, but that doesn't mean a person who cares about the future of this country should vote for him. If he is elected we will almost certainly go to war with Iran, for instance, "straight talk" notwithstanding.

Posted by NOtorious P.A.T. | February 18, 2008 1:20 PM

That's hilarious! There's a "cult" surrounding Obama, but not McCain? McCain who can do no wrong, who always tells the truth even when he contradicts himself? McCain whom the press loves and adores no matter what? No, no cult there.

Posted by Notorious P.A.T. | February 18, 2008 1:25 PM

Ken, you're a dishonest McCain troll. As a liberal, I have always despised McCain for his flagrant dishonesty on practically everything, including his so-called opposition to torture, which isn't very great because he might not have really been tortured, just injured when he lost his plane. According to contemporary accounts, he was believed to have given up info almost immediately when threatened, which is why the Viet Cong used him as a prop with the media. St. John McVain is a war lover and nutwing asskisser so suck it up, Ken, and go peddle your pap where there are rubes who might be buying. That ain't here, buddy.

Posted by W Action | February 18, 2008 1:27 PM

Ken "liberal dem" Troll...

You sir, are either a liar or an utterly deluded brain dead excuse for a human being...

Repeating Republican talking points about "straight talking" McCain and the "cult like" followers of Obama paint you for what you really are...a Republican Troll.

Go away and STFU and stop lying to the posters here about yourself!

Posted by wagonjak | February 18, 2008 1:51 PM

In light of McCain's unfortunate experience in Vietnam, his torture vote makes me conclude that he is the anti-Clinton:

He wants others to feel his pain.

Posted by Dangerfield Newby | February 18, 2008 2:05 PM

ken wrote, If you pay attention and do some research on McCain you will find out that he is not the ogre many people think.

Here are some voting scorecards:
Americans for Democratic Action
* 2007
- McCain 10%
- Clinton 75%
- Obama 75%
* 2006
- McCain 15%
- Clinton 95%
- Obama 95%

League of Conservation Voters
* 2006
- McCain 29%
- Clinton 71%
- Obama 100%
* 2005
- McCain 45%
- Clinton 95%
- Obama 95%

The notion that you're a liberal is LOL funny.

I can see disliking Obama's rhetoric. I can't see voting for John "Bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb-bomb Iran" McCain in the fall.

Posted by liberal | February 18, 2008 2:05 PM

Let's hear it, ken. Which of McCain's positions would a liberal support? Enlighten us.

Posted by Cyrus | February 18, 2008 2:24 PM

What the hell does it mean that 'he has the courage to follow the crowd and to lead it'?

Posted by gregor | February 18, 2008 2:26 PM

And don't forget everybody, he also admits he doesn't understand economics. That's a big plus.

Posted by Kris | February 18, 2008 2:39 PM

McCain has supported Bush on pretty much every administration initiative - torture, warrantless wiretaps, Iraq, the Patriot Act, the 'surge', Gitmo, no-bid military outsourcing.

He has carefully positioned him not to piss off his conservative Congressional masters while keeping an arm's length from their rhetoric. He's had every opportunity to "lead" us from the contractor-serviced debacle in Iraq, and failed to do so.

He claims he called for Rumsfeld's resignation, but no one can find a single utterance to that effect. Chalk that one up to convenient history-rewriting.

Policywise, McCain is Bush II. Any self-professed 'liberal' who even considers voting for this guy is validating an administration of spectacular duplicity, mendaciousness, corruption, incompetence and serial disrespect for American values, and should be ashamed of themselves.

Posted by CoDave | February 18, 2008 2:41 PM

A liberal cannot support a cult nor can a liberal support a messianic figure running for elected office. It doesn't matter the party. Principles are more important than party identification. So as a liberal I cannot and will not vote for Obama. Nor will any my liberal friends who have talked honestly about this.

Unlike other liberals however I do not hate all republicans. I actually like John McCain and will be voting for him in November if Senator Clinton, my preferred choice, is not available.

Posted by ken | February 18, 2008 3:28 PM

Ken, really - WTF is al this "cult" stuff you're going on about? Specifically?

Beyond all that horsepucky, it doesn't MATTER who we think these people are, at the personal level. We don't KNOW who they are, all we know is their public persona. And their voting records - which is really all that matters. What are their policies, and how have they voted in the past? That's what matters. And as "liberal" so tellingly pointed out above:

Here are some voting scorecards:
Americans for Democratic Action
* 2007
- McCain 10%
- Clinton 75%
- Obama 75%
* 2006
- McCain 15%
- Clinton 95%
- Obama 95%

League of Conservation Voters
* 2006
- McCain 29%
- Clinton 71%
- Obama 100%
* 2005
- McCain 45%
- Clinton 95%
- Obama 95%

Whup! There it is. Ken, you're either a troll or very, very naive.

Posted by Macjazz | February 18, 2008 3:45 PM

Let's hear it, ken. Which of McCain's positions would a liberal support? Enlighten us.

I like the one about the very "grown-up" stance of John McCain by which we will be in Iraq for 100 years, take action against Iran, yet not raise any taxes. Yeah, boy howdy, that's a very grown up, responsible position, known commonly as "having one's cake and eating it, too".

Ken's a liberal like I'm a B-52.

Posted by LittlePig | February 18, 2008 4:08 PM

he's a troll. don't feed the troll.

Posted by will | February 18, 2008 4:08 PM

Ken (Mehlman?),

What part of McCain's platform do you consider to be yours as a liberal:

1) Economic policies that favor big business?
2) Anti-choice judges?
3) Increased militarism throughout the globe?

You show an amazing ability to talk in riddles and platitudes. Why not explain one policy that you as a liberal share with McCain.

Posted by z adura | February 18, 2008 4:12 PM

Ken,

Obamamassiah was born without sin, and he alone is the Light and the Hope. If you do not believe, you are wicked. And wicked people are bad. Don't you undertand?

Please do not assert otherwise. That's oppressive and makes people feel bad. Only Hillary has flaws, and later, McCain will have flaws. Matt says so.

Posted by Beer Here | February 18, 2008 4:59 PM

The fervor of support for HRC among some women borders on the cultish, no?

Posted by nbt | February 18, 2008 6:28 PM

Lucy got it right. McCain doesn't know how to stand for his family or his stated deepest convictions - and he's going to make a good President? My foot!

Posted by Arun | February 18, 2008 8:06 PM

Wow Howdy, do I ever enjoy reading the comments here! Where else could every conceivable rejoinder to "'Liberal' Ken (Mehlman?)" be written so quickly, and with nary an ad hominem slander in the bunch. To coin a phrase... "I'm Lovin' it!"

Posted by MR | February 18, 2008 8:42 PM

You know, when I was a kid, my mother would occasionally make mistakes in childrearing. Truly earthshattering things like forgetting to wash a favorite shirt or embarrassing me in front of my teenage friends. And when I in my teen hysteria became...well...hysterical over a minor thing, she'd tease me by conceding the minor error, agreeing with me that it made her the Worst Mother in Recorded History, then adding "but any faults you admit, you get to keep!"

I never once thought that the transparent tease used on a hysterical teenage girl could work so well on the press corps that it became an actual presidential platform.

Wait 'till I tell my mother. She's totally gonna start angling for veep.

Posted by anon | February 18, 2008 10:23 PM

"Today, the AZ Senate debates SB1214, a bill to allow concealed weapons inside SCHOOLS!"

What a HORRIBLE idea! Just imagine if one of the teachers in Columbine or Virginia Tech had a concealed weapon -- they might have been able to kill a mass murderer before he shot dozens of students.

Posted by Fred | February 18, 2008 10:45 PM

Not that I'm against concealed weapons, but it would seem to me the more logical response to school shootings is to have an armed security guard or two on the premises - hopefully one paid more than minimum wage and trained adequately so that he doesn't shoot more students than the next rampaging killer (and hopefully vetted enough so that HE isn't the next rampaging killer.)

The reality of life is: if you want protection against being shot by somebody, you either carry a gun or you hire somebody to carry one for you.

This wouldn't seem to be rocket science.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 18, 2008 11:25 PM

Ken cannot "vote for a cult"? What is cult-like about the Obama campaign? Sure, he has some young and passionate followers. Sure, not all of his followers can recite chapter and verse about his policy positions. But both of these things are true (to a large degree) of the campaigns of Obama's opponents, and neither of them indicates that his campaign is anything like a cult. Some of Obama's supporters are older, and dispassionate, and extremely well-informed about his positions. Come to think of it, just by making the suggestions above I have said more about the "cult" angle than Ken ever did. Ken hasn't offered a single argument in support of this stupid Republican talking point. It's an assertion, not an argument.

Posted by dtlandry | February 19, 2008 12:17 AM

Whether Ken is liberal or conservative is quite beside the point. McCain has about as much a chance of winning in November as Bush has of being remembered 25 years from now as a truly great President. Not in your lifetime or mine.

Nobody wants 4 more years of Bush, and the next best thing is a grumpy, 73-year old man who has become leader of the fear driven conservative movement, a former maverick turned right wing suck-up for whom integrity and independence is a thing of the distant past. Never will the contrast between politics as it has been, and politics as it can be, be more stark than it will be this November.

Posted by Mark from CC | February 19, 2008 12:45 AM

Sadly, I think McCain does have a chance of winning in November. I don't predict it, just saying it's entirely possible.

Pull some Obama quotes out of context, start painting him as a far left liberal black man who wants to take all your money in taxes (and I heard he's a ... Muslim! One of ... them!) Swift Boat him in various ways. And above all, play the fear card - savvy war vet John McCain will keep us safe from the bad guys - didn't you see "Die Hard" ^_^?

And ... as they say, every president we've ever had has been a white male of northern european descent. That's McCain, not Obama, nor Hillary. Don't get me wrong, I despise McCain and the entire agenda of which he's a part. I just don't want to ... misunderestimate ... what we're up against.

Maybe things have changed enough now to break the mold - it's already happened in the Dem primary. And polls tell us that Obama beats McCain, for what little that's worth. So I'm hopeful. But I'm not going to count any chickens just yet.

Posted by Macjazz | February 19, 2008 4:59 AM

well, when a man can lie with a straight face, you automatically believe he's arepuglitard

look at this bullshit lie

Sure I am a liberal democrat

if, after 7 years of the worst president in America's history, you're still considering casting a vote for mccain, even after mccain promised to continue bush's disasterous, then you ain't no liberal democrat

and you should stop telling that lie, cuz the only person on the planet stupid enough to believe it is you

that is, if you really are stooooopid enough to believe what you say

Posted by free patriot | February 19, 2008 1:49 PM