Based on what I saw last night, I guess McCain no longer considers the press his “base.”1 Each of the major speaker last night were in full attack-the-media mode. Now, this is hardly unusual: politicians love to attack the media, and Republicans have long decried the “liberal media” in particular.
Yes, attacks on the media are popular, and both parties do it. However, the Republicans find themselves in a situation where they are rather unpopular and need to make a case about how they are going to fix the problems that the Bush administration has created. Instead, last night seemed to be not much more than attacks on invisible, amorphous enemies (i.e., liberals and the media) as if the party didn’t have to do any introspection or deal with the fact that their party’s president has an approval rating in the low 30s. McCain cannot win if he doesn’t find a way to deal with that reality. Attacking liberals and the media won’t cut it. The problems in Washington at the moment cannot be blamed on those actors, not by a long shot. Anyway, railing against the media and liberals is so 1980s.
Indeed, the only positive attacks were retrospective ones. The main reason given for voting for McCain (as opposed to simply bringing up liberal boogie men) was his
character as evidenced by his experience in Viet Nam. In terms of actual policy in more recent times there were discussions of his support for the surge despite its general unpopularity at the time. Without getting into the direct merits of that policy one way or another, the fact of the matter is that there was no forward-looking discussion of what McCain would do in Iraq (apart, of course, from “victory”–and who could be opposed to that?).
Now, Night 4 may be different, and McCain needs to make a positive case about himself tonight.
- Indeed, Howard Kurtz writes about “The War Against the Press” in WaPo, specifically about an interview with McCain adviser Steve Schmidt. See also here. [↩]
September 4th, 2008 at 8:29 am
“Instead, last night seemed to be not much more than attacks on invisible, amorphous enemies (i.e., liberals and the media) as if the party didn’t have to do any introspection or deal with the fact that their party’s president has an approval rating in the low 30s.”
With the Democrat leadership popularity in the House and Senate in the teens, it can be very easily argued that the reality is that most people think less of the Democrat leadership than they do the Republican leadership ( being twice as popular at this time ). However, you will NEVER see that being mentioned by the “invisible, amorphous enemies”. So, needless to say, I think you are 100% wrong in your assumption that the only thing Republicans have to worry about are how “to fix the problems that the Bush administration has created”. They also have to worry about how to deal with the “invisible, amorphous enemies” that are broadcasting to the entire world every single day and minute on MSNBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC. And, quite often, here. I don’t think McCain ever considered the “invisible, amorphous enemies” his base. They may have been friendlier to him in the past when he wasn’t a Republican figurehead, but I’m quite certain he realized that in a competitive situation with a liberal Democrat, he’ll lose every single time with the “invisible, amorphous enemies”. And, so far, he pretty much has. How often have you criticized Obama’s invisible, amorphous plan for the future? How often have you criticized the “invisible, amorphous enemies” for dogging Palin’s children while ignoring Obama’s starving brother and Biden’s criminal son? It’s not so much that the “invisible, amorphous enemies” are once again doing what every Republican expects, it’s just sickening how blatant the bias is this time while those proclaiming to be fair and balanced attack those that are disgusted with how blatant it has become. I mean, think about it, why was the only news media even interested in John Edwards’ being busted in a hotel late at night after seeing a new mom the National Enquirer? No other “invisible, amorphous enemy” would touch it even though they were ready to pounce on Palin’s baby boy possibly being her daughter’s based on nothing but a blog post on Daily Kos?
“Anyway, railing against the media and liberals is so 1980s.”
The fact that the “invisible, amorphous enemies” don’t see the blatant bias in the face of blatant facts means you’ll just have to get used to it. It’s more deserved now than it was in the 1980′s. “Media”, primarily news media, has sunk to all time lows in the last two decades and seems to only be getting worse. In my opinion, it’s the collapse of news media ethics and standards that have fueled the blog world more than any other factor. In 1980, would Keith Olbermann have even been allowed on a major network? Give me a comparative figure in 1980. It was the advent of CNN in 1980 that led to all this mess we have now that calls itself “news media”. We used to only get the news, now we get nothing but opinions with some news thrown in. A lot of people can’t distinguish the difference. That, in my opinion, applies to the media as well.
Sure, that jaded opinion applies to both sides of the aisle, but while the Republicans can say Fox is friendly to them, the Democrats can count on pretty much all the rest. That, in my opinion, is why Fox now leads in the news ratings. All the rest are splitting their “base”.
Given the wild, often totally unsubstantiated attacks on Palin while Obama and Biden get free passes for obviously doing worse things, McCain and Palin both have every reason to dig at media.
I’m done for now. I would go into some of the obvious evidence of “invisible, amorphous enemies” that are not so invisible, and not so amorphous, but I would guess most people have quit reading by now.
September 4th, 2008 at 9:57 am
[...] remembered what it is they’re supposed to be doing. (Is that what happens when you’ve decided the press is your enemy? Too bad that’s what it takes, if [...]
September 4th, 2008 at 10:35 am
I think your analysis is right on, Steven. While Palin was effective at riling up the base in the convention hall, it can only take the ticket so far.
Assuming we have seen the Sarah Palin that we will see on the campaign trail, if you compare her to Biden, I would assume that his gravitas will likely sway more swing voters than Palin’s shrill attacks.
Also, did you find it as weird as I did when Rudy and Palin went after Obama’s past as a community organizer in such a mocking way? It was more in line with right-wing attacks on “liberal professors.” I don’t see most moderates having a problem with “community organizing.” I understand that Palin was trying to distinguish “organizing” from her experience as a suburban mayor, but it just seemed strange.
Since most low-information voters have very little idea what community organizing actually is, their mocking of it comes off as trite and petulant.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:38 am
While they were obviously trying to use the community organizer thing as a dig at Obama’s experience (I still find it weird that they wanted to highlight the experience thing on Sarah Palin Night), I agree with your basic assessment. It seemed unnecessarily derisive.
September 4th, 2008 at 10:46 am
It seemed unnecessarily derisive.
I forgot to add, this tactic was odd especially because Obama IS a liberal professor! They should have just used the old tried and true demon instead of introducing a new bogeyman!
Obama=Ward Churchill !!!
September 4th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
…no forward-looking discussion of what McCain would do in Iraq (apart, of course, from “victory”–and who could be opposed to that?).
Those of us who are anti-imperialists, perhaps.
September 4th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Ah, but surely there is even a anti-imperialist version of “victory”?
Beyond that, touting support for “victory” is like touting support for “education”–hardly something most people are going to get all upset about.
(But yes, I take your point).
September 4th, 2008 at 2:58 pm
[...] Some are doing it in a not-so-overt fashion, and I don’t even think intentionally or with any malice: Yes, attacks on the media are popular, and both parties do it. However, the Republicans find themsel… [...]