On Sunday I wrote about some of Presidential Candidate John McCain's more extreme and recent flip flops, and how the media practically gives McCain a free ride. Worse, in 2004 flip flopping was considered a seminal topic, and constantly talked about; when a) it was Kerry who was constantly accused of being a flip flopper, and even though b) most of these accusations were patently false (gay marriage, No Child Left Behind) or extremely misleading (Iraq, USA Patriot Act). Yet here is McCain, establishing a rather profound pattern of inconsistency and outright contradictions, and it is barely being covered.
Part of this is because Democrats and other independents (many of the latter having been somewhat misled by this same veritable free ride by the media), simply have not focused on making the case similar to the way that an overly influential far right did with respect to Kerry. What makes this particularly egregious is that, again, many of the accusations regarding Kerry were patently false or extremely misleading. And that, in stark contrast, many of McCain's flip flops have been either fairly extreme, or wholly inconsistent with his own statements and professions.
Yet Kerry as flip flopper defined 2004, whereas the far more pertinent story of McCain, as someone who has pandered extensively (ironically, it was Hillary Clinton who was repeatedly charged with this -- originally being inaccurately labeled "too liberal" when she is not a liberal, and then of pandering based upon positions that are not, in fact, overly liberal), radically shifted several of his positions to the far right, and flip flopped or outright contradicted himself on most major issues, has not begun to define anything in the national debate.
With respect to why, it is a cart and horse thing both. Democrats, including the DNC, have not focused on effectively making the case, and the media continues to essentially largely give McCain a free pass. (And, Democrats often ho hum and simply say it's "business as usual" when the media does this, rather than focusing on publicly and constantly making this case as well.) I have suggested before on here that part of the reason for this may be a tendency on the part of active Democrats to presume that "everybody knows what we know," or that everybody tends to see things the same way that active Democrats do, politically, when, as the last few elections have shown, this is clearly not the case.
So, as a moderate Democrat -- who believes McCain the moderate Republican has become McCain the extreme and wildly inconsistent Republican who has blatantly pandered in order to win the nomination of a party that has been essentially hijacked by its own right wing -- I instead present a challenge to the moderate to hard core Democratic Kos community and broader Democratic party.
I can't back it up by anything more than my word, but if you, the DNC, the Obama campaign, and other prominent Democrats focus on exposing misleading far right rhetoric and making that the national story, and on similarly as part of the national story illuminating the vast inconsistencies and contradictions of the McCain campaign and McCain's repeated flip flops, and constantly call out the media to do as well and make an ongoing and extremely public (but not whiny), case of it when they do not, Obama will win comfortably. (I'd throw this in too, just to be certain.)
Now, Obama may win anyway. But really, does that say all that much? More people identify themselves as Democrats than Republicans right now, the Republican party is in disarray, a close to unprecedented number of Americans currently believe that America is on the wrong track (while McCain, according to him, is "100 percent in agreement" with President Bush on the "transcendent" issues of the day) and the outgoing Bush Administration has some of the highest disapproval ratings in modern history.
So you might win. But my challenge is this. If you focus on making this case effectively, and in a way that does not "tell" America what is going on, but shows America, and holds the media accountable for what has been abysmally one sided coverage of the McCain candidacy, Obama will win -- and as importantly, most voters will not be voting based upon widespread ignorance as they were in 2004. So my challenge is to see if as a Democratic party, this can be done.
And by the way: The Post editorial Sunday that once again candied McCain, is here. It's okay, in the Post's view, that McCain the environmental candidate who pledges to reduce carbon emissions by 70 percent by the year 2050 wants to drill offshore, when the only result of that long term minor increase to our domestic oil production will be to increase carbon emissions, and reduce market incentive toward alternative and more sensible energy production. Why? Because, according to the Post, it helps to bring a "welcome widening of a larger and necessary discussion."
Memo to the Washington Post: The "talk of drilling and squeezing oil out of shale" has not brought a widening discussion, it is a reflection -- and some of the most counterproductive ideas within it -- of that same discussion, brought on by high gasoline prices.
Additionally, the tenor of the Post's article is in essence to praise McCain for what is a counterproductive suggestion, one that represents a flip flop, and one that is absolutely inconsistent with his constantly emphasized claim to reduce carbon emissions. Since in order to do the latter by definition we must use less oil, drilling for oil in sensitive areas -- whether it solely replaces two or three percent over the next twenty years of our gargantuan and extremely foolish 60 percent reliance upon foreign oil, or more likely based upon the basic economics of supply and demand simply serves to facilitate more usage overall -- simply will not in any way assist in leading to a reduction in oil usage necessary to keep our carbon emissions from rising, let alone cutting them by 70 percent in the next forty years.
On the other hand, as for Barack Obama, here is how the very same Post editorial dismissed what is not a counterproductive suggestion, not a flip flop, and not one that is completely at odds with his own statements on climate change and carbon emission reduction. "The 'mantra' [which is already a somewhat pejorative usage of the word in this context of praising "discussion" even if that discussion otherwise says "lets reduce oil use by drilling for more of it"]...
...The mantra from the Democratic Party -- from the presumptive presidential nominee, Sen. Barack Obama, on down, has been a variation on "we can not drill our way out of this crisis."
Never mind that, in fact, the Post agrees (as I do, but as an independent occassionally moderate Republican leaning Democrat I guess the Post would argue that I'm supposed to -- nothing to do with the logic of the situation) that, in fact, we can't even remotely drill ourselves out of this situation. (And could not even if climate change were not even an issue, let alone a fairly pressing one). But more importantly, by disagreeing on the idea, as one of many different strategies, that we should open up more offshore drilling, it is implicitly Democrats who are stifling "wider discussions:"
But if it is acceptable to drill [elsewhere in the world] it's hard to explain why the United States should rule out [ostensibly environmentally sound] drilling off its own coasts.
Well, Fred Hiatt, it's not hard to explain. I just did, three paragraphs above. (And being an expert on energy and energy policy, I would send you some relevant information that from your own statements in the past supporting increased gasoline taxes, you would probably understand and agree with. But you will probably not read any of it, just like you didn't, apparently, on FISA.
What is harder to explain, if your newspaper has not consciously, or subconsciously, become a shill for the Republican party -- by virtue of the fact that currently, the facts simply don't support what has become a far right Republican party, but if you printed the facts, which would more often than not cut against them, the far right would jump up and down and scream "bias" -- is why you work so hard to praise McCain.
I praise him myself, when relevant. And I don't have to work or twist or contort, to do it. You do, and that's not journalism. That's accommodating a far right that has spent the last 15 years convincing your industry, and the public, that it is not the facts which support a much more moderate position than they hold, but instead is only "media bias" which apparently does. And that, for a robust democracy, is a travesty; to which you have fully accommodated, and which the Washington Post's editorial page under you has become part and parcel of.