Home
Archive
Newsletters
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Advertisement
Advertisement

Election 2008

Ignore the Corporate Media Spin, McCain is a Weak Candidate

By Frank Rich, The New York Times. Posted April 28, 2008.


Democratic infighting might seem bad, but McCain is trying to succeed the most despised president in his own 71-year lifetime.
Advertisement
Upcoming AlterNet stories on Digg

Its a nightmare. It’s the Bataan Death March. It’s mutually assured Armageddon. “Both of them are already losing the general to John McCain,” declared a Newsweek columnist last month, predicting that the election “may already be over” by the time the Democrats anoint a nominee.

Not so fast. If we’ve learned any new rule in the 2008 campaign, it’s this: Once our news culture sets a story in stone, chances are it will crumble. But first it must be recycled louder and louder 24/7, as if sheer repetition will transmute conventional wisdom into reality.

When the Pennsylvania returns rained down Tuesday night, the narrative became clear fast. The Democrats’ exit polls spelled disaster: Some 25 percent of the primary voters said they would defect to Mr. McCain or not vote at all if Barack Obama were the nominee. How could the party possibly survive this bitter, perhaps race-based civil war?

But as the doomsday alarm grew shrill, few noticed that on this same day in Pennsylvania, 27 percent of Republican primary voters didn’t just tell pollsters they would defect from their party’s standard-bearer; they went to the polls, gas prices be damned, to vote against Mr. McCain. Though ignored by every channel I surfed, there actually was a G.O.P. primary on Tuesday, open only to registered Republicans. And while it was superfluous in determining that party’s nominee, 220,000 Pennsylvania Republicans (out of their total turnout of 807,000) were moved to cast ballots for Mike Huckabee or, more numerously, Ron Paul. That’s more voters than the margin (215,000) that separated Hillary Clinton and Mr. Obama.

Those antiwar Paul voters are all potential defectors to the Democrats in November. Mr. Huckabee’s religious conservatives, who rejected Mr. McCain throughout the primary season, might also bolt or stay home. Given that the Democratic ticket beat Bush-Cheney in Pennsylvania by 205,000 votes in 2000 and 144,000 votes in 2004, these are 220,000 voters the G.O.P. can ill-afford to lose. Especially since there are now a million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania. (These figures don’t even include independents, who couldn’t vote in either primary on Tuesday and have been migrating toward the Democrats since 2006.)

For such a bitterly divided party, the Democrats hardly show signs of clinical depression. The last debate, however dumb, had the most viewers of any so far. The rise in turnout and new voters is all on the Democratic side. Even before its deathbed transfusion of new donations, the Clinton campaign trounced the McCain campaign in fund-raising by 2.5 to 1. (The Obama-McCain ratio is 3 to 1.)

On Tuesday, a Democrat won the first round of a special Congressional election in Mississippi, even though the national G.O.P. outspent the Democrats by more than double and President Bush carried this previously safe Republican district by 25 percentage points in 2004. A Gallup poll last week found Mr. Bush’s national disapproval rating the worst (69 percent) for any president in Gallup’s entire 70-year history. For all his (and Mr. McCain’s) persistent sightings of “victory” in Iraq, the percentage of Americans calling the war a mistake (63) also set a new record.


Digg!    Share on facebook   submit to reddit    Bookmark on Delicious   Stumble This  

See more stories tagged with: john mccain, election 2008

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Election 2008! Sign up now »

Advertisement
Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
Reagan was a weak candidate
Posted by: Rune on Apr 28, 2008 12:18 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
but the Democrats were represented by a weakened (and never especially strong) Jimmy Carter while Reagan's people did some illegal wheeling and dealing with Iranian hostage takers to make sure Carter looked bad right through election day. Reagan, with some help from John Anderson's third party candidacy, became president.

Today, both Democratic candidates are, in many ways, weak and inexperienced while McCain is completely selling out to a GOP machine that has taken dirty politics to a level that is shocking to any who have not already become numb from the constant stream of scandals and brazen manipulation giving rise to them. McCain is not running on his smarts, he is running on deception, manipulation, and dirty tricks and he is backed by operatives who excel at that sort of thing.

What have the Democrats got? Oh, yeah, hope, change, and a bunch of smoke and mirrors to cover for their lack of executive experience. I think the Democrats should be more worried about their side of the game and less focused on the obvious vulnerabilities of McCain that won't matter much so long as the sold out media remain sold out, which is highly likely. In fact, if the Democrats keep polarizing their base while McCain makes his way around the cakewalk, one of them could very well find a third party candidate jumping in to take advantage of that situation, which would leave McCain in a very Reagan-like advantage--with or without another Iranian adventure to seal the deal.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: patfr Posted by: bobtr900
» SEE REAGAN COMMENT BELOW Posted by: Raymond Emerson
» Rune Posted by: bobtr900
» RE: eagan was a weak candidate Posted by: Livemike
Ron Paul in Second Place!!!
Posted by: xvictor on Apr 28, 2008 4:01 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Pennsylvania's educated voters sized up McLoser and decided to take a second look at second place winner Ron Paul, despite the fact he's longer promoting himself. If this fortunate turn of events continue in the next primaries Dr. Paul should make more appearances. This should give Obama, Hillary and McCain cause for concern. In a debate with all of them, Ron Paul should easily smack 'em down. No question. Hope the voters pay attention!!!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: on Paul in Second Place!!! Posted by: willymack
» RE: So is he going to run? Posted by: oregoncharles
You Ron Paul wackos never give up, do you?
Posted by: Ellie1 on Apr 28, 2008 6:29 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Yes, you are wackos. AND YOU LOST! Give it up, you morons.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Leaves out the VP nominees
Posted by: war_on_tara on Apr 28, 2008 6:39 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I think it's inevitable that Obama will have to choose Clinton as his running mate, IF ONLY to prevent her from being the sore loser she wants to be! You know she & Bill would prefer to go off and sulk rather than do what's best for the country, but let's hope she accepts.

McCain has a big potential problem here. He's old & in shaky health - anyone he chooses is the prospective successor president. If he chooses Romney in order to rally the conservatives, he'll scare off moderates. Huckabee, no way, he'll scare off the conservatives. An obscure governor?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Leaves out the VP nominees Posted by: willymack
» That's what I would prefer too... Posted by: war_on_tara
» RE: O Lord - please no. Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Leaves out the VP nominees Posted by: carbon-based
» RE: Leaves out the VP nominees Posted by: Livemike
Jimmy Carter was a fool then and
Posted by: Opinionator on Apr 28, 2008 7:12 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
is an even greater fool now. Please God , a Democrat win in November will restore some sanity to this country especially if it is Obama!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Politics as usual
Posted by: sre on Apr 28, 2008 7:30 AM   
Current rating: 3    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I saw a cartoon the other day depicting the three main presidential candidates as the Three Stooges. I also listened to comedian George Carlin as he talked about the presidential race. George Carlin said something that I think is profound about our political rulers and hopefuls: They are selected and elected from among the people. They are representative of us. In short, we can hope for no better as long as we the people are as we are.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Politics as usual Posted by: e rice
The Master Flip-flopper.
Posted by: HughScott on Apr 28, 2008 8:37 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Being a Vietnam veteran and lifelong registered Republican, I used to be a McCain supporter. Then he flip-flopped on torture and Bush tax breaks for the rich.

Sadly, honor and integrity no longer seem important to John. That's why I'm 100% behind Barack Obama and will write him in on my November ballot should Mrs. Sniper Fire steal the Democratic nomination.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Prophit - Scaremaster Posted by: zipper696
Weak or not....
Posted by: Grandma Crabby on Apr 28, 2008 8:58 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media loves John McCain. If that keeps up, then we're all in trouble.

In my observation, whoever is favored in the media will win. Seems to me that LOTS of people do NOT see McCain for what he really is because the media still portrays him as the straight talking maverick.

I can't fathom why anyone would support McCain, but the fact is about 50% of the population does at this point.

The dems are throwing victory in the trash and if they can't win after Bush, there is no hope.

All my luv,
Grandma Crabby

VideoProductionTips = Learn Internet Video

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Yes. that's why... Posted by: oregoncharles
» Grandma Crabby Posted by: bobtr900
Pessimistic
Posted by: QQOblivion on Apr 28, 2008 9:28 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
I usually agree with Frank Rich. But he underestimates the gullibility of the American people. Sure, McCain supports endless wars, tax-cuts for the ultra-wealthy (while cutting "waste" elsewhere), and his spiritual advisors want literal Armageddon to soon occur.
And never mind that McCain supports the same failed policies of George W Bush, the most disliked president probably in US history.
Never mind that, because: 1) Americans are idiots.
2) The US media wants McCain to win.
3) The Barack/Hillary soap-opera is tiresome to voters.
4) The general election will at least be close enough that the GOP can steal it (again).
So, is it any wonder that McCain is doing so well against the Democrats candidates?
Look for a possible McCain landslide in November. I have already bet money on this outcome.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

John McCain's age
Posted by: rsmohio on Apr 28, 2008 9:30 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
was mentioned in this article, and it got me thinking. If Mr. McCain, Mr. Obama, and Mrs. Clinton were running against each other in an open election, who would you vote for? Take away their party affilitations when considering this. What this would be is a truly diverse election. There's a senior citizen, a woman and a minority. A young, homophobic rascist would be in a real quandary on this one.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: John McCain's age Posted by: Livemike
The Attack Upon Iran Will Change Everything..
Posted by: TJ-stars4peace on Apr 28, 2008 10:09 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Everything will change when Bush and Cheney attack Iran, which they are going to do..they have around 280 days still to do this and everything from General Petraeus being made the head of Central Command to the obsessive filling and buying for the Petroleum Reserve..and the growing Iranian war rhetoric..points to this..plus we'll never really know who wins this coming election..McCain doesn't have to win, just be declared the winner..!

There are still 14 states that have purely electronic voting with no way to re-count and Bush recently acted to block recounts..

So McCain may start with a handicap of up to 14 states..

We'll never really know who wins this election, and hardly any of our legislators are hammering away at this..Rush Holt of NJ stands out most of all in this regard..!

Then there's the Federalist Society Court our old, one time Supreme Court did you see that usurper Antoni Scalia on 60 minutes a Founder of the Federalist Society Tory Cabal..?

You saw the recent decision over Indiana requiring photo ID all Federalist Society Judges plus Stevens upheld this so they are already F--king with the American electorate again already..

You think this is a democracy..?

It's not even a Republic any more our representatives no longer represent us, or our best interests..

The attack upon Iran will change everything...FOREVER...!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» jeez. should i open a vein now Posted by: KaptainSpiffy
I like to listen
Posted by: hurricane hugo on Apr 28, 2008 10:29 AM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
to local Christian right radio and...I don't know if this is happening in the rest of the country but, here in the Detroit area, it seems like half of the evangelical/born-agin' crowd won't vote for Mccain under any circumstances.

jdfu!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: I like to listen Posted by: just john
» RE: I like to listen Posted by: yale
» Yale Posted by: bobtr900
Spotlight on McCain
Posted by: brunowe on Apr 28, 2008 2:14 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
First, all the news is focused on the Clinton-Obama fight. McCain locked down his nomination early so he isn't subject to the type of scrutiny a hard-fought campaign would involve.

This will likely change after the Democratic convention when the nominee (likely Obama, though that isn't guaranteed at this point). The nominee will be able to turn most of the focus on McCain, there will be an increased highlighting of his policies and his temperment.

Further, the general trend is Democratic. McCain won't have the advantage that an incumbent President, even an unpopular one, would have. The economy is bad and will likely be worse as we approach the election. The 2006 elections and what is expected for the congressional elections in 2008 indicate a Democratic trend. This administration can point to no conspicuous successes in domestic policy or even in foreign policy. On the latter, the most the surge has arguably done is prevent Iraq from weighing heavily against the Republicans (which was arguably one of its purposes).

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» brunowe Posted by: bobtr900
Thank You Frank Rich (are you payin' attention Timmeh?)
Posted by: rkewen on Apr 28, 2008 2:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thank you, Frank Rich. It gets so tiresome listening to the "sky is falling on the Dems" pundits. This election it's a wonder that anyone thinks ANY Republican has a shot at the Whitehouse. Indeed it is a wonder so many of the members of Bu$hco are running free and not incarcerated.

Indeed Karl Rove's dream of a Thousand Year Right Wing Reich may indeed turn into a permanent exclusion from power, unless Americans decide they actually prefer war criminals in the Executive and government by the Corporations and for the Corporations. Americans would probably prefer elected officials with a respect for the Constitution and the Rule of Law also.

Maybe I'm wrong and war criminals are cool, the Constitution is a piece of meaningless paper and the Law is for other people, not the Preznit's friends. Torture Rocks and people take comfort in being spied on as much as possible and prefer that the rich look after ALL of the money, if possible. Well, then vote for John McCain, but once you do, don't complain, even if YOU win an all expenses paid open ended vacation at Gitmo!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Dickinseattle
Posted by: Dickinseattl on Apr 28, 2008 5:29 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The media is the primary source of this country's problems not the Republicans! Without it they'd never win! In 2000 the print media supported Bush, an unqualified candidate, 2:1. We can't ignore them, we have to relentlessly attack them for their spin, lies of ommission and commission, and deceptive issues. The Establishment Liberals in our alternative media won't do this.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Dickinseattle Posted by: bobtr900
REAGAN SENT BILL CASEY TO NEGOTIATE AGAINST CARTER IN THE IRAN
Posted by: Raymond Emerson on Apr 29, 2008 11:36 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
hostage afair. Carter was never as weak a candidate as Reagan was crooked. Ronald Reagan was a traitor and should have been shot at sunrise. He was only protected by his alzheimers. The decision was not to prosecute a sick person.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Ignorance no defence...
Posted by: Kevin Straw on Apr 30, 2008 4:10 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
The problem with Iraq wasn't the lies, it was the ignorance. A lie is a false statement made by someone who knows the truth but has a motive for telling a falsehood. No one knew the truth about WMD. Even Syria believed Saddam had WMD. Powell spent five days with the secret services going over the evidence before his speech to the UN. I cannot imagine Bush or Blair telling a lie which would so easily be found out. What happened in Iraq was that the top was knocked off a bottle that was on the verge of disastrously exploding. Not only that but there was someone nearby who had every interest in shaking up the bottle as it erupted. All this should have been known and catered for.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Ignorance no defence... Posted by: Crazy H
» RE: Ignorance no defence... Posted by: Kevin Straw
Clinton should be a dead duck.
Posted by: Livemike on May 2, 2008 4:19 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Well cattlegate should have sunk Hillary's chances of getting elected dogcatcher, but still she did it. Makes you wonder why everyone's going so soft on her. Maybe the media WANTS an easily blackmailable candidate.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/
mi_m1282/is_n3_v47/ai_16709018

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]