If I gave a damn what John McCain thinks. I'm as mystified at the press' worship of Senator McCain as I am by worship of Bill Clinton. I really don't get it.

John McCain and Alan Keyes both got some respect from me when they ran against G. W. Bush back in 2000. Everyone knew that Bush was intended to win from the begining. At least, McCain made Bush work for it rather than just coasting to destiny.

For McCain that gamble has translated into being viewed by the media as a republican authority independent of the Bush administration. I think it's less worship and more that the media wants to come up with rivalries and counterarguments without working hard. So get the Bush point of view, and then talk to McCain to get "the" rival republican point of view. Then you can publish a "fair and balanced" news story.

Rand, do you disagree with this:

''I have strenuously argued for larger troop numbers in Iraq, including the right kind of troops -- linguists, special forces, civil affairs, etc.,'' said McCain (R-Ariz.). ''There are very strong differences of opinion between myself and Secretary Rumsfeld on that issue.''

Do I disagree with what? That McCain argued that, or that he was right at the time, and Rumsfeld wrong?

I don't have enough information to know specifically what McCain has said over time (partly because I get tired of listening to him). As to whether he was right or wrong, hindsight is always twenty-twenty. The war was not fought perfectly (like every war in history), but I think it's gone about as well as it could have been reasonably expected to, and most of the people second guessing Rumsfeld now were predicting much more dire outcomes.

Anyway, that's not really the point of my post, which was about media worship of John McCain.

The part that baffles me is how they'd expect 'more troops' to work exactly. Shinseki would have wanted 500,000 for 'major combat ops'. Even 500,000 wasn't going to _eliminate_ the nickel-and-dimeing -> political/popular pressure would still exist to maintain (or increase) force levels. The current 'tour extensions' of 3 months or so would look like a picnic, and it wouldn't be a question of 'So is it worth considering the draft?', it'd be a matter of 'Should we do a second larger one?' Or we'd be saying 'sorry, nearly all our troops are leaving in January, good luck!'.

If McCain's campaign finance reform had worked as intended it would make the mainstream media far more powerful. The Media understands this and thus they supported McCain. It's that simple.

When Bush and McCain were first running in NH in 2000 I was a NH resident, On two consecutive days I went to a Bush Rally and a McCain Rally.

The Bush rally was in a very large gym (for NH) and it was overflowing. There were about 50 people that could not get inside and were outside as overflow. At the end of the meeting Bush spent 20 minutes taking un censored questions from the audience, I know the questions weren't planted as he answered mine on space policy. He answered all the questsion well, in detail without notes. He was not afraid to tell someone he did not agree with them. I was blown away, this was not the stupid texan that the media had presented.

The next day I went to the McCain rally, it was in a very small town hall building.
There were 25 to 30 people total including some of his staff.
He gave a 20 minute speech then took questions,
he never answered a single question directly, all
questions came down to "thats messed up because of $ in politics and my campaign reform will fix this." Never a single idea or single thoughtful response. When McCain's Rally was over staff handed all 25 of us hand painted signs and shoved us over into a corner and asked us to look excited.
They photographed all of us cramed too tightly into 1/16th of the hall.

I watched the National Media coverage of both events. There were national media cameras at both events. At the Bush event the coverage went like:
"Bush had a campaign event, the turnout was as expected."(Then show the 50 people in the overflow crowd outside, no shots of the 2000+ people inside)

"McCain had a rousing campaign event with an
ethusiastic turnout, he answered questions from
the excited crowd for 30 minutes." Then they show
the shot of all of us crammed into the corner with the hand painted signs.

The Media presentation was completly invalid and in fact was presented as the opposite of what had actually happened. This is not a third hand account, I personally went to BOTH events.

My personal attendance at several more Bush and McCain events made me really question the validity of the NH primary results, the reported election
results did not juve with the size and mood of the various campaign appearences I attended.
(http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/02/01/nh.primary/)

The most annoying thing about McCain is that he seems to have no consistent positions, left or right. He seems to decide his stance on any given issue by flipping a coin. Yet, whatever way the coin comes up, he insists that he is taking the stand "on principle" implying (and often actually stating) that anyone who takes a contrary view is unprincipled.

The second most annoying thing is the constant reference to his Vietnam captivity as if that proves he is right on specific technical issues like weapon systems, staffing levels, etc.

Sort of like John 'Effin Kerry, eh annon?

Rumsfeld has done an amazing job.

There was lots of snipping about Afghanistan, such as we couldn't possibly win a war in such a distant country, with so few allied adjacent countries, against such a motivated culture. Such arguements had the ring of truth, however the naysayers have proven wrong in Afghanistan.

Iraq continues to be a much greater challenge. The war there is not yet won. And yet I think it is incorrect to try to criticize the actions taken by our military planners. Reason? Because we don't know what would have happened if we had started later and launched with more troops. I don't see how having more troops would have necessarally prevented a single IED, or changed the casuality numbers to date.

As for the "armor" issue, I find it to be rather trumped up. Significant amounts of armored vehicles (both in number and percentages) are in Iraq. We don't have 100% yet, we are working toward that, at an accelerated pace. Even when we arrive at 100% IEDs can still kill you -- bullets can still kill you, mortars can still kill you. So those that are so critical: what's your perfect plan?

Rummy has led. Rummy has directed the harsh truth into the press corp and inspired the troops, the president, and me with confidence that we can win what we set out to do. And we will by being steadfast, true to our objectives, and honest in our assessment of the facts.

Those that are critical of Rummy: come up with a valid criticism that isn't monday morning Qbacking and we can use in our war. Until then, pipe down and be thankful the DOD has prevented another attack in the US.

--Fred

I do not know McCain that well, but I do know that it is perfectly possible for two different persons to take different stands on the same issue and yet be principled.

Each one has his own set of moral standards, molded by experience and genetics (which in a way is also experience, since a different body provides you with a different experience). It is when these standards clash that there are problems.

Disregarding moral considerations, I have to admit I did not expect such swift victories in either Afghanistan or Iraq. They were triumphs of organization, logistics and heavy bomber air power. However, I also expected the ensuing times to be full of strife in the way of asymmetric warfare. Unlike Rumsfeld which, at least from the public statements I heard, seemed to think they would be showered with flowers like USA soldiers in Paris during WW2. In the end the result seems to be something in between both these predictions, however the end is still not in plain sight.

In Europe's past colonial experience, it proved impossible to pacify areas of which you did not control the neighbourhood. Israel had a similar experience which led them to invade Lebanon in an attempt to erradicate the PLO. Afghanistan's neighbours include Pakistan, Iran and China. Iraq's neighbours include Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Syria is basically stuck, so I expect most troubles to come from the China/Pakistan/Iran belt. Kurdistan should be well policed to prevent enlargement of the belt to Syria. The USA has the most powerful Navy in the world by several orders of magnitude so we can basically discount the sea for substancial reinforcements.

Borders are always permeable to a degree and while the opposition movements have outside support in money, weapons and men, tacit or explicit, they will never vanish completely. Will the fragile governments put in place tolerate the pressure? I still do not expect them to resist in the mid-term.

McCain is about control. Republicans are decreasingly about control as compared to Democrats. He seems more and more out of place as a result.

Power for the sake of power. "Regulate because I can." Use every trick to build an aura of charisma, gravitas, competence, whatever it takes to fool people and retain/increase power.

Power for the sake of power. "Regulate because I can." Use every trick to build an aura of charisma, gravitas, competence, whatever it takes to fool people and retain/increase power.

Sounds like Dubya to me. ;-)

JOHN.MCCAIN == NOT(ZELL.MILLER)

Sounds like Dubya to me. ;-)

So you agree that Bush projects "charisma, gravitas, competence"?

> McCain is about control... Power for the sake of power. "Regulate because I can."

But McCain is a libertarian. The press has said so.

McCain seems to be something of a concept, which you buy or you don't. It's about persona, rather than issues. Because he chain smokes Marlboro cigarettes, he's a "libertarian" -- even though he wants to regulate the industry he supports with his habit.

"But McCain is a libertarian. The press has said so. " And you believed the press? Yikes! No way McCain is a libertarian - populist maybe, libertarian NO.

Rand;

McCain is popular woth the press becaus he gave them SO MUCH access duting the 2000 primaries.

And they like his rhetorical style - hes aplain talker who makes good copy easy.

He's also a war hero who likes to "take on" the Pentagon.

And, he's a "maverick reformer."

All of these make him a romantic hero to the Old Media - which is dominated by the Left and promotes a Leftist agenda that McCain goes along with HALF THE TIME.

He's the GOP/vet the Left likes because he was anti-Bush.

That's all.

OH... one more thing: McCain is a media whore; he sucks up to them the way BJ Clinton sucked up to interns...

Most people forget that he was one of the Keating Seven.