The New York Times has a story up for tomorrow about "disarray" in the McCain campaign. Adam Nagorney, the reporter, cites a number of problems that the campaign is having, including "resignations of staff members, a lagging effort to build a national campaign organization and questions over whether he has taken full advantage of Democratic turmoil to present a case for his candidacy." It's mildly interesting.
And then it gets downright hilarious when we get to page two of the article, and we get quotes from Republicans about how McCain will run against Obama.
The string of departures from the campaign was prompted by questions about lobbying activities by aides and advisers to Mr. McCain and a new policy, which he dictated, that active lobbyists not be allowed to hold paying jobs in the campaign. Mr. Schmidt said that policy was an example of how Mr. McCain would take tough action, part of a contrast he said they would draw with Mr. Obama for "giving great speeches" but having no record of accomplishment.
The idea that firing members of your own campaign staff constitutes the sort of "Tough action" that people remember at the ballot box ("I was going to vote Obama but McCain got my vote for cracking down on his own attempts to get my vote. That's the kind of toughness that will keep Iran out of my bedroom.") is funny enough.
But then we get this knee-slapper. The McCain people plan to play up McCain's toughness as "part of a contrast he said they would draw with Mr. Obama for 'giving great speeches' but having no record of accomplishment.'"
Has camp McCain been watching American televsion or keeping up in any kind of semi-interested way with American politics for the last 3 months? Are they aware that a primary season is underway? Clinton tried that argument. She tried it for many, many weeks. Exactly, precisely, that. Clinton's exact argument about Obama was, all he's got is "a speech he made in 2002."
And Clinton lost.
McCain's people are geniuses. It staggers the mind.
Next:
Some Republicans said they were concerned that the Democrats would soon unify around Mr. Obama, and that it was only a matter of weeks before Mr. Obama began unloading a huge round of advertising intended to define Mr. McCain. If that happens, they said, Mr. McCain may look back at this period as a time of missed opportunity.
This gives me a chance to say something that's been in the back of my mind for awhile now. Perhaps you are familiar with the recent mantra that McCain can't get in the news because the Democratic candidates are still fighting it out. It takes a certain disciplined decorum, here, not to point out that McCain is a major political party's nominee for President of the United States. If he is having trouble getting himself heard above Obama and Clinton, then he is the single most uninspirational, uninteresting, unengaged human being on Earth. If the Republicans had nominated a bottle of Sprite, it would have the visibility and public interest necessary to get the public's attention.
"Missed opportunity." Well, yes, dipshit. There are only so many weeks in the campaign.
Discussing what Mr. McCain needed to do, Mr. Nelson, another veteran of the Bush 2004 team, said: "Step No. 1 would be finding a compelling message that excited Republicans, and Step No. 2 would be having the ability to turn your voters out. From what I see, in both respects, they have a long way to go, but they have time."
Step 1 would be finding a compelling message that excited Republicans. Stop it, you're killing me. Isn't that a bit like telling a grown adult that "Step 1 in tying your shoes is locating your feet"? If you have to say it, there's no point in bothering.
Oh, and by the way: if you're having trouble finding a compelling message, then why are you running for President? Is the reason an afterthought?
Well, yes, dipshit.
I hate to keep saying it.
"I think any Republican who doesn’t say panic is in the wind is lying through their shirt," said Ron Kaufman, who was a senior adviser this year for Mitt Romney. "The question is, is that panic caused by McCain’s campaign — or lack thereof in some respects — or is it the climate?"
It's both. And you're fucked.