MSM denizen David Broder made a telling slip in yesterday's column, a polite profile of incoming Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell. Broder says "McConnell is no reformer" because he fought McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform. Yet, just sentences earlier, Broder says,
In the interview, McConnell repeatedly stressed his belief that divided government -- a Democratic Congress confronting a Republican president -- need not produce gridlock. He cited a wide range of issues, from raising the minimum wage to reforming ethics rules to immigration and Social Security reform, where he sees good prospects of legislative agreement.
So, McConnell isn't a reformer if he wants to take on the laborious work of reforming either immigration policy or Social Security because he opposed the grand pooh-bah of all media adored topics, campaign finance reform (which last time anyone checked hasn't exactly achieved its desired purpose of reducing the influence of money in elections). This sort of errant misplacement of labels is exactly what drives media critics nuts, and results in media defenders offering obtuse response of "there is no intended bias." Sure, no intent, I accept that. But unintended bias can be just as bad as that which is intended. And David Broder, the man in the middle who drives both sides nuts, is guilty as charged in this case.
Locally, Joel Connelly picks up the banner as well in today's column about John McCain. Connelly liked McCain when he was the "maverick" and a "reformer." Then Connelly, like the rest of the media after 2000, finally started to figure out that beneath the veneer of the "Straight Talk Express" is a true conservative, Republican (albeit one that conservatives themselves don't much like). Suddenly, McCain is a "reformer" no more, no matter how many significant changes he wants to make in an assortment of existing federal policies.
That's the rule from the media. You're a "reformer," if we say so.
Posted by Eric Earling at December 04, 2006 07:25 AM | Email ThisLet me guess... you're backing McCain in 2008, right? The stretching that you've demonstrated in calling McCain a "true conservative" would put a sideshow contortionist to shame. I call that "bias."
So John McCain is a conservative if you say so?
Eric, you need to learn how to think critically.
Posted by: ERNurse on December 4, 2006 09:09 AMAnd for the record, you should stop jumping to assumptions and start reading, since I've been quite clear I'm supporting Mitt Romney, in no small part because he's the antithesis to McCain on many levels. Moreover, as a precursor to that endorsement I specifically critiqued McCain in this post.
Grow up.
Posted by: Eric Earling on December 4, 2006 09:22 AMThanks for picking up those cones, very neighborly of you.
As to Romney in a national election I think he's got as good a chance as any of the current top three, including he, McCain, and Giuliani. Starting as only an interested observer several months ago, I've tracked Romney's steady rise through the ranks of the very early contenders and observed him to have a potent set of political skills. Combine those skills with a conservative agenda that can have broad appeal and I think he could be a real force, though at this early stage it is exceedingly difficult to make serious predications about how campaign dynamics between the top contenders will unfold.
In addition, I think Romney's most prominent opponents have their own potential pitfalls on the trail. I can live with Giuliani if he wins the nomination, but he has to deal with the fact his tremendous positive name ID is only likely to go down in a robust and lengthy primary, as voters learn more about him. Meanwhile, I think people will find that McCain won't be as formidable a candidate on the trail as he was in 2000 with all the fawning media coverage giving him a tremendous boost, especially since this campaign season will be amazingly long (thus giving more opportunities for stumbles of various types). Plus, 2008 is still likely to be a "change" oriented election, and it's really tough to see a sitting US Senator being able to really pull off that theme well.
Beyond that, I think it's nearly impossible to predict the general election because there are so many variables with crowded fields on both sides of the aisle.
A secondary consideration for candidates of both parties will be whether either party produces a nominee enough in the mainstream to win a plurality. The candidate viewed as most reasonable by the middle will win.
McCain and Romney are now proving that they are not Ronald Reagan. Both have evolved into more conservative candidates than either has been in the past. The base is already seeing through this. At least with Reagan, you knew what his basic principles were. McCain, Romney and Giuliani seems to be trying to hide aspects of their past to win within the GOP.
As for McConnell: Eric has a point about a lot of the media seeming to try to dictate requirements labels like "reformer." But Mitch McConnell is hardly a trailblazer, on much of anything. He's a player.
Posted by: thor on December 4, 2006 07:04 PM