New at Reason
Matt Welch offers a few sure-to-be-unheeded pieces of advice for editorial page editors who are gearing up to endorse John McCain.
Comments to "New at Reason":
I haven't read Matt's piece yet, but I bet it can be summarized as "don't!".
sage | January 15, 2008, 12:10pm | #
Any book-pimping in this one? Wait for it...Matt Welch is Editor in Chief of reason, and author of McCain: The Myth of a Maverick.
...there it is.
Franklin Harris | January 15, 2008, 12:48pm | #
I haven't read Matt's piece yet, but I bet it can be summarized as "don't!".If you are thinking of endorsing John McCain for president, DON'T!!!
joe | January 15, 2008, 1:06pm | #
If Mitt Romney straps a dog to his roof, it's because he's too freaking stupid to know that you're not supposed to do that.If John McCain straps a dog to his roof, it's because the dog pissed him off.
Dogzilla | January 15, 2008, 1:07pm | #
Not many people know this, but Matt Welch is really Matthew Lillard. If you don't believe me, check out the photo:http://mattwelch.com/votingrecord.html
Matt you slacker! You're suppose to be keeping this tyrant OUT of the oval office. Have you seen his InTrade stock! GODDAMNIT Matt. Get off your white ass and go create a scandal or something. Unless we get another flurry of Iraqi IEDs we're all going to live in McCainville. What do you get when you cross a Nanny State with an abusive parent? The workhouse state? Fucking eh, I bet he's already printing his little red book.
John | January 15, 2008, 1:15pm | #
1. McCain flip flopped on the Confederate Flag in South Carolina in 2000. So what? What is Reason's position on the Confederate Flag controversy?2. McCain was in with Charles Keeting. That is a fair criticism. Keeting was a crook and McCain was in bed with him. It was also 20 years ago. If McCain really was that big of a crook, it would seem to me that you could come up with something on him more recent than that. He has been in the Senate for the entire time. At some point there is a statute of limitations on this kind of thing. Is it your contention Matt that McCain's only stain of corruption in decades of public office was the Keeting scandal back in the early 90s? If that is true, I would say McCain is more honest than most politicians in either party. If it is not true, why don't you talk about something more recent and relevant?
3. McCain has never been a consistent tax cutter. Again, fair enough he really hasn't been. But exactly how much credit Matt have you or your magazine given to Bush for cutting taxes? That would be slim and none. It is a bit rich for you to come in now and rip on McCain for not supporting tax cuts when your magazine doesn't seem to deem them important enough to ever talk about or lend any support. Further, even if you are a genuine tax cutter, does that mean that you support Thompson, who is probably the most consistent advocate of tax cuts in the field?
4. McCain is a war monger. Now we get to the heart of why Matt hates McCain so much. He quotes McCain as saying "The United States should formulate a policy, in many ways similar to the Reagan Doctrine, of supporting indigenous and outside forces that desire to overthrow the odious regimes that rule these states." Well no shit Matt. I think everyone knows McCain's position on these issues by now. Who exactly is endorsing McCain thinking he is an isolationist? How is endorsing McCain not telling readers who "he actually is, rather than who you'd like him to be." Who wants McCain to be an isolationist? What the hell is your point here? You don't agree with McCain about interventionism. That is your right. But you get such a case of the vapors over it. You act no one in the world agrees with McCain outside of some mysterious group of "neocons" whoever they are and everyone who endorses him does so without knowing the deep dark truth of his candidacy. Give me a break. People vote for McCain primarily because they support the war and McCain is the most vocal supporter of it. If you don't like the fact that people still despite your protein wisdom on the subject, support the war, tough shit, sometimes life is like that.
I am not even a supporter of McCain. I will never forgive him for campaign finance reform and I think he has a terrible temperament to be President. He is too arrogant and combative. He would be a disaster as a President. But the more Welch writes on the subject, the better McCain looks.
jimmydageek | January 15, 2008, 1:20pm | #
I think you're missing the point, John. Others are making false claims about McCain, and Matt is simply setting the record straight.John | January 15, 2008, 1:26pm | #
"I think you're missing the point, John. Others are making false claims about McCain, and Matt is simply setting the record straight"Whatever "false claims" they are making, they are not claiming that McCain is anything but an unabashed supporter of the war. Further, all of the alleged "criticisms" of McCain Welch puts forth are all pretty chickenshit, except for his position on the war which Welch has a legitimate beef with. The problem is that Welch just can't accept the fact that anyone could possibly disagree with him and agree with McCain about the war. So in Welch's mind any support of McCain must be because of some conspiracy to lie about McCain's record. Welch's pursuit of McCain is starting to border on some kind of derangement syndrome.
You don't agree with McCain about the war and several other things. You think he would be a bad President. We got it Matt.
ed | January 15, 2008, 1:26pm | #
It's not as lively around here since he who cannot be named was purged.Has McCain by chance lent his name to any loosely edited newsletters?
THE URKOBOLD HAS IT ON GOOD AUTHORITY THAT MCCAIN'S FIRST ACT AS PRESIDENT WILL BE TO NUKE VIETNAM. NOT SURE WHY. AFTER THAT, HE PLANS TO RESIGN AND ENJOY A NEEDED VACATION FROM POLITICS.
Matt Welch | January 15, 2008, 1:36pm | #
The problem is that Welch just can't accept the fact that anyone could possibly disagree with him and agree with McCain about the war. So in Welch's mind any support of McCain must be because of some conspiracy to lie about McCain's record.That's really not the problem, on account of not being remotely true.
I've had people read my book and say they're *more* likely to vote for him because of it, to which I say "huzzah!"
Regis Carnifex | January 15, 2008, 1:44pm | #
I'm not sure what Matt's point is about McCain's Confederate flag remarks. Maybe I just need more context? But it seems consistent to say (1) the Confederate flag is a symbol of racism and (2) it should be up to individual States whether to fly the flag.Matt Welch | January 15, 2008, 1:53pm | #
Regis -- I should have used longer quotes. Basically, he said first that the flag was a symbol of racism and should therefore come down, and then the next day said that it was really a state issue and that's all he was going to say about it.He was pissed off about saying the latter, because in his "heart" he preferred the former, so he would, when asked, elaborately unfold a crumpled piece of paper from his pocket and woodenly read the tepid states' rights comment "like a hostage," in order to signal to reporters that his heart really wasn't in it.
After the campaign was over, he returned to South Carolina and repudiated his states' rights claim, admitting that he'd said something he didn't believe, for political expediency. He went on to call his states' rights statement a "lie" in several venues, including his book and on Larry King Live.
He's not much of a federalist, all in all.
Guy Montag | January 15, 2008, 2:00pm | #
Matt,IIRC, wasn't this SC flag issue about the Confederate Battle flag and not even about the flag of the Confederacy at all?
But, yes, McCain was all over both sides of that issue. Sounds like it is common with Naval officers who join the ranks of the Senate.
Dodsworth | January 15, 2008, 2:01pm | #
Good but you need to criticize head-on the view that McCain is a principled opponent of torture. His support for the torture-enabling Military Commissions Act shows that he isn't. The much hated RP (at least at Reason) is the only consistent opponent of torture in the GOP field.If I were to pile on, of course, I'd note that McCain has still not fully apologized for public comment calling the Vietnamese gooks.
Guy Montag | January 15, 2008, 2:06pm | #
The criticism of McCain on his "torture" view is that he wishes to lump in any old thing that a passing Leftist wants to call the US on (while blaming all foreign torture on the US). He might as well ask Murtha to be his running mate or promise him a Sec. Def. job.Sje | January 15, 2008, 2:28pm | #
I think Matt's criticisms of McCain are mostly justified, and I could think of some others. I am from a country that was run by the Nazis for 5 years within my grandparents' and some schoolteachers' lifetime, and I was raised and educated by such people to be extremely suspicious of talk of "national greatness" and the like. I know this is mostly symbolic, but McCain's nationalist ersatz religion, elevating an admittedly historically successful but ultimately fairly arbitrary political-administrative unit to the "something greater than yourself" that can give meaning to your life—that scares the hell out of me.At the same time, the main flaw of Matt's article is simply that he knows as well as anyone that given some time he could have dug up a similar set of criticisms about any of the other Republican candidates. Of course that might be reason for a conscientious op-ed editor not to endorse anyone at all until the Perfect Candidate comes around, one who thinks of government as a pragmatic least of evils that can keep the peace and leave the manufacturing of Higher Causes to civil society... but I don't think that's how op-ed pages work.
John McCain | January 15, 2008, 2:35pm | #
Actually, I called those gooks Motherfuckers.Guy Montag | January 15, 2008, 2:35pm | #
Note: my last comment was not about Matt's work, it was my comment about Sen. McCainRay Eckhart | January 15, 2008, 2:35pm | #
I think you folks who think that Welch is simply a McCain basher either have difficulty understanding the words he’s written, or are jumping to conclusions, without having spent any time actually reading the words.From the best that I can determine, Welch is being just as(if not moreso)critical of the media narrative “McCain the straight shooting Maverick”, as he is of the man himself.
From the Acknowledgements of his book, "Rare indeed is the politician who sustains his or her interestingness after lengthy study."
From the Washington Post review of the book, “But in the end, this unflattering portrait turns out to be surprisingly flattering.”
Even in this piece, the message I get is more along the lines that jimmydageek points out. By all means endorse the fellow, there are any number of reasons to do so, but please stop the hagiography (especially when it’s so easily debunkable) and “ tell readers who he actually is, rather than who you'd like him to be.”
You folks are doing a disservice to both the author and his subject matter by making such a simplistic reading of the work.
Reinmoose | January 15, 2008, 2:37pm | #
Sje -Matt's aritlce is merely saying not to call McCain something he's not. The media play him out to be perfect in every way, and that's just not the case.
Regis Carnifex | January 15, 2008, 2:43pm | #
Matt-Thanks for the clarification. Your complaint makes more sense to me now.
Mutts | January 15, 2008, 3:07pm | #
How about, don't plagiarize the endorsement from his speeches, and if you do, don't distribute it throughout your newspaper network to every former "hometown" paper. Actually, go ahead. Next time people want to know what happened at the town council meeting, maybe they will show up themselves.Perhaps MW was unaware these endorsements have become a joke?
Ken Shultz | January 15, 2008, 3:21pm | #
And you thought it was too late to write that book!You must be licking your chops. Sales must be going through the roof! You're gonna end up on the McLaughlin Group!
McCain flippantly said that he didn't care if we were in Iraq for a hundred, thousand, or even a million years. How many new terrorist recruits did he incite with that one? McCain is a warmonger and a nut.
Windtell | January 15, 2008, 4:48pm | #
I have spent time reading the article and the links provided within.It was a poorly written article jumping to conclusions on a very narrow list of subjects and quotes.
For the record, I think McCain is a nut, I just think that Welch could have done so much better.
Ventifact | January 15, 2008, 5:50pm | #
[Hmm.]Matt D. | January 15, 2008, 6:25pm | #
McCain's record is indeed rather mixed--or, in other words:"McCain supports amnesty for illegal aliens, was behind the Gang of 14, is a gun grabber, opposed the Bush tax cuts, ran roughshod over the Constitution with McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Reform, opposes a Constitutional amendment to protect marriage, was rumored to be considering switching parties multiple times, talked with John Kerry about being his Vice-President, lines up with the global warming alarmists, wants to close Gitmo, wants to coddle captured terrorists -- you can go on and on with this. In essence, John McCain is hawkish, he's fiscally conservative, he has a solid pro-life voting record that is at odds with his previously stated opposition to overturning Roe v. Wade ("I would not support repeal of Roe v. Wade." --John McCain, 1999) -- and on everything else, he's a Democrat."
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2008/01/14/a_conservative_nightmare_republican_nominee,_john_mccain
Colin | January 15, 2008, 6:36pm | #
McCain is a wonderful candidate.He's against free speech, wants to keep troops in Iraq for 100 years, and wants to put missiles in a country that hasn't existed for 16 years.
Please, endorse him.
Ventifact | January 15, 2008, 10:14pm | #
So at some point I realized that McCain competes with Paul for (among others) the anti-war votes and the "integrity-in-government" votes (related as those are). McCain's continuing relative success is not very helpful for Paul, especially in retrospect of the Maine disappointment as it is supposedly a live-free-or-die kind of place. If libertarians need to bring anyone down to make Paul important, it's McCain. So here we are. But I doubt reason staff really would deny this line of thinking influences their choice of what (who) to write about, and anyway it doesn't make their analyses incorrect.Ohhsweetconcord | January 16, 2008, 1:40am | #
Matt D.,That quote you provided kind of makes me have even more respect for McCain. Honestly, I really do kind of like the guy. Yeah, he might have lied about the Confederate Flag but at least he admitted that he was lying.