Remembering the McCain Insurgency

Brian Doherty | June 28, 2007

Former reason-er Matt Welch wonders at his blog how the Weekly Standard's McCainiacs William Kristol and David Brooks have managed to carry on a media talking heads career as if they are dispassionate political analysts, complete with some hilarious blasts from the 2000 election past showing how McCain love clouded their political vision.

Welch's anti-McCain feature from reason's April 2007 issue.

Comments

|6.28.07 @ 9:07PM|#

and you can bet Nick Gillespie and Jesse Walker would, at minimum, act like gleeful, you-can't-handle-the-freedom jackasses.

Damn dude.

Kevin Carson|6.28.07 @ 9:49PM|#

Michael Ware is the "Straight Talk Express" these days.

|6.28.07 @ 10:23PM|#

I created the math issue over the wholesale apparel company when I wanted the top shirt by CK. The handbags by gucci was nice to. No problem with womens clothing by the wholesale bulks. It was all liquidation merchandise.

|6.28.07 @ 11:06PM|#

I hereby declare that I will agree with Closeouts on every thread in the future.

Matt Welch|6.29.07 @ 12:51AM|#

Term of endearment, Warren.

|6.29.07 @ 9:20AM|#

I still can't figure out why they're still asked their opinions about the Iraq War.

|6.29.07 @ 10:01AM|#

Joe,

I still can't figure out why they are not asked everytime they appear: "As a supposed conservative, how is it that you can continue to defend any position of the Bush administration on any subject?

|6.29.07 @ 12:08PM|#

Tbone,

What the heck are you talking about. These are the architects of the 'neoconservative' aka old style liberals with a military fetish.

The question I think they should be asked at every appearance: Since every single thing you've ever written has since been proven, not just wrong but disastrously so, why should anybody ever pay the slightest attention to you ever again? Don't answer that, it was rhetorical.

[e-mail]|6.29.07 @ 12:47PM|#

Warren,

Of course the PNAC clan were the "architects" (I might or might not include Brooks - more mouthpiece than leader) and should be dragged through the muck for reasons you sighted, but if you tie it back to their "conservative" street cred, they look doubly foolish.

While I understand the roots of the PNAC, in the McCNNHardFoxNewsBall cycle, I'm satified if the MSM keeps tying them to Bush's violation of "conservative" priniples. I'm not sure the electorate digs much deeper, let alone demonstrates a willingness to plumb critical analysis. The list of people I know who even take the time to watch Frontline/BBC News (or read Reason) is pretty damn short.