McCain Hiring Advisers He Once Disparaged As Overly Negative
Okay, it looks like one big news org is finally getting a little bit tough with John McCain. The New York Times has just posted a piece pointing out that many of the advisers he's hired -- from his ad men to his senior aides -- are people McCain's aggressively faulted in the past for launching political attacks that he said at the time were over the line. More after the jump.
The Times points out that McCain has hired:
* Mark McKinnon, Russell Schriefer and Stuart Stevens as his ad men -- but McCain complained in 2000 that the ads those men helped make for Bush distorted his record.
* The ad-making firm of Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm -- which worked on his 2000 campaign, but which also made the ads for the Swift Boat Vets against John Kerry in 2004, which McCain called "dishonest and dishonorable."
* Terry Nelson, a GOP operative who played a key role in launching the infamous "bimbo" ad against former Tennessee Senate candidate Harold Ford. Another of McCain's advisers has faulted that ad.
One highlight of the piece: The Times observes that these hires come as McCain "transitions from being a onetime maverick to a candidate seeking to gather his party around him and create an air of inevitability about his prospects for winning nomination."
"Onetime maverick" -- exactly right. As in, not a maverick this time around. If only the other news orgs would follow the Times' lead...
How does this constitute getting tough with McCain? Nobody cares who he hires to work for him, unless they've got skeletons or unless they actually produce negative attacks for McCain. He could be hiring these folks to keep them from working for someone else, in which case -- it's a smart move.
February 3, 2007 5:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, at least the Times called him a "one-time maverick." That's sort of, kind of getting tough, lol.
February 3, 2007 6:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Great. Now if only more commentators would take time and discuss how McCain has more dangerous foreign policy goals than George W. Bush.
February 3, 2007 9:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Any day now, Karl will sign on.
February 3, 2007 11:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, they are basically pointing out that he's a massive hypocrite who is apparently willing to sell his soul to become president.
February 4, 2007 9:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Terry Nelson... been trying to find a picture of him.. Is he that squeaky-voiced fanatic operative that Chris Matthews has on all the time... kind of a round, pudgy face who won't shut up...
And no, I don't mean Matthews... :-)
February 4, 2007 11:40 AM | Reply | Permalink
...he's a massive hypocrite who is apparently willing to sell his soul to become president.
But It's OK If You're A Republican, ohiomeister!
P.S. I find I can't rate comments, because there is an ad that never finishes loading. This also happens on the other computer (which can't be my work computer, because I would never be reading blogs when I'm supposed to be working...). Anyone else having this problem?
February 4, 2007 11:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
If only the other news orgs would follow the Times' lead...
They will. Just as soon as the Times jumps on the Post's bandwagon and starts trashing the Dems and building up the Republicans.
The coverage in 2004 was fair, the coverage in 2000 was the worst I've ever seen, and if the Post has its way, the coverage in 2008 will be worse than 2000. I wish someone could explain to me why. Somehow Somerby's explanation, that it's a class issue, and the big media are just protecting their own financial interests, seems a little too facile. But when one side is grateful for scraps like this piece, there is a serious problem, and finding out the cause of that problem is the first step in correcting it. If this is the best we can expect from "the paper of record"....
February 4, 2007 12:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
aren't we all
February 4, 2007 12:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
What OS and browser are you using? I'm having no such problem with Firefox browser on Win XP.
February 4, 2007 1:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
unfortunately for us all, probably a much more likely possibility than we realize.
February 4, 2007 1:45 PM | Reply | Permalink
Take heart, the Dems took back Congress inspite of Fox, Rush, and the arrogance of East Coast newspapers and pundits -- even in spite of the Democrats. The public has been way ahead of the press and I'm thinking McCain's time may have passed. Americans are sick of pointless war and McCain's fame is being an old soldier from another pointless war.
February 4, 2007 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Is John McCain really the best we can do? All due respect, he is nothing more than recycled Bush. We all thank him for his service in Viet Nam. He wasn't there alone. Many veterans are still languishing in military hospitals, forgotten. They are not able to run for president on their combat record. They can't even take out the garbage. And for that, their Commander in Chief cuts their funding. McCain let Bush walk all over him in the 2000 primary. He never fought back. Now he wants back in and he has nothing to offer but more of what we've had for six years. He was going to put an end to torture. Made alot of noise about it and then signed whatever was put in front of him. His exact words were,"we were able to give the president everything he wanted". And that's all we can expect form John McCain. Whatever Bush wants. I thought we'd have enough. Guess not.
February 5, 2007 9:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with your assessment. It's what prospective divorce clients are advised to do: find the nastiest, meanest, most underhanded divorce pit bulls and either hire them, or get their advice in consultation so that they may not represent the spouse without their consent for conflict of interest reasons. That's the best explanation.
And you get the analogy: political campaigns are the closest thing to contested divorce litigation I've ever seen. That's how nasty partisanship is.
Remember: The run on the bank scene in "It's a Wonderful Life."
February 6, 2007 12:17 AM | Reply | Permalink
It's not exactly squeaky; it is simply a voice that has never been influenced by testosterone. Close your eyes when he talks and you think you're listening to an eleven year-old.
Jan Knaus
February 6, 2007 9:56 AM | Reply | Permalink