Political Reporting or Hit Piece?

Photo of Kathleen McKinley.

Matt Taibbi of Rolling Stone must've been in a difficult bind--in this video, he can't decide who to ridicule more, John McCain or the voters. He never seems to include Democrats in this kind of political bashing.

Apparently, he's taking his anger out on McCain for not bashing President Bush like Taibbi wishes he would:

That supposed straight-shooter quality already cost McCain dearly in South Carolina once, when his refusal to fight back against a sucker-punching George Bush in 2000 sent his political career into a spiral, indirectly sending the rest of us careening into an ill-considered invasion of Iraq. Now, in mid-September, I watch him return to the state as a prisoner of Bush's idiot policies in Iraq. This time around, by some curious leap of Stockholm-syndrome logic, McCain has chosen Bush's cruel and asinine Mesopotamian war as the great principle he will not betray. This leaves him looking like a morbidly tragicomic figure, the doomed last rat stubbornly remaining on the deck of his one-time enemy's fast-sinking ship. As he makes his fateful return to the state where it all started to go wrong for him eight years ago, you can almost see a flash of pained recognition in his eyes, as if he is seeing his mistake too late, as the water rises up to drown him in obscurity.

It was obvious right from the start that things had changed decidedly for the sadder since the last time McCain campaigned in South Carolina. Back then, in 2000, McCain was the hottest name in American politics, a Newsweek cover boy fresh from his victory in New Hampshire. This former POW came to South Carolina on an all-time high, expecting to win this state in a rout and be crowned nominee of his party and probable next president of the United States. In those days, his candidacy's signature image was his campaign bus, a decked-out vehicle with STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS plastered on the side that was received as a campaign co-star bigger than even McCain's war record or his doe-eyed, former-pill-popping wife. That, of course, was before the so-close-you-could-touch-it fantasy turned completely to shit -- amid a strange firestorm of whispers and rumors about McCain having gone crazy in Nam and later fathering an illegitimate child with a black prostitute, rumors the Bush-Rove camp winkingly denied thinking up for the pre-election amusement of these simple rural folk.

Fast-forward to September 2007. Buzz all gone, campaign coffers nearly empty, having suffered the indignity of finishing behind Barack Obama in a survey of Iowa Republicans, McCain limps into South Carolina a whipping boy for the loser-hating national press. This time around, he has named his bus after a failure. While rivals Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson and Mitt Romney all ride in pimped-out circus vehicles with geeky names (the "Mitt Mobile" is an all-time low), McCain's bus looks like it was rented off a lot in Paramus, New Jersey. It features no stenciled flags, no proud-looking eagles, nothing -- just a single green stripe with a sad little double-entendre inscription on the side reading NO SURRENDER. As in, No Surrender in Iraq, as well as No Surrender in My Doomed Campaign. That someone in the McCain camp thought it prudent to advertise, on the side of a bus, the desperate nature of the candidate's situation should say everything that needs to be said about how his campaign has been run all year.

—Kathleen McKinley is a blogger whose posts appear at Rightwing Sparkle.

Read comments

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

What in the hell are these

What in the hell are these BDS victims gonna rant about when Bush is gone? Is nothing in the world NOT George Bush's fault?

Typical trash...

Yet another piece illustrating (as if we needed more examples) how the liberal concept of proper press is a long string of personal attacks and heavily-loaded (with opinions and inuedoes, not facts) comments.

http://www.rhjunior.... Great comics with a hefty dose of Christian and anti-nutjob goodness.

"With your mind as high as Mt. Fuji you can see all things clearly. And you can see all the forces that shape events; not just the things near to you." Miyamoto Musashi

"Now, in mid-September, I

"Now, in mid-September, I watch him return to the state as a prisoner of Bush's idiot policies in Iraq."

Hey, the "journalist" missed the dimocats u-turn - again.  If he thinks that McCain is misquided, what does he think about the top three defeatocrats at their last debate.  There, all three stated that they could not guaranantee that the US would be out of Iraq by the end of their first term, if elected.  That would be 2013!

Ssssssssssssssssssshhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!

Hey, what am I doing.  The press certainly knows what these three candidates stated and like this "journalist" are dutifully ignoring this - their latest - flip/flop.

John "the King of the Flip/Flop" Kerry - where are you when we need you?   lol

Adolescent journalism

His piece showed a number of ordinary citizens saying "stupid" things. Let's see. If I took a camera crew out and interviewed random people in any major city, we'd quickly compile a highlight reel of answers we could mock for stupidity. However, how many of those would be conservative? Or liberal? Suppose I went to San Francisco during Gay Pride. Do you think I'd be able to find some mockable cross-dressers? Jay Leno does "Jaywalking" every week. It's an old, common staple (Steve Allen used to do "man on the street" interviews). But this sneering "journalist" puts out his own segment, editing in only the stupid people who reinforce his bias. How clever ...

To prove his cleverness, he resorts to a tired cliche, which only proves he isn't clever at all. Like most adolescent thinkers, he often proves the opposite of what he intends.

  • Take, for instance, his mocking of the idea that we need to "fight them over there instead of fighting them here." Taibbi merely shows that he doesn't understand the phrase that he's mocking.
  • The phrase means that you don't fight terrorists directly. Instead, you have to destroy their resources and support at the root, and the root happens to be "over there." Terrorists survive on the funding, training, and support that they get from sponsors. The Taliban was a sponsor. Saddam was a sponsor. If you try to track down each individual terrorist and prosecute them as criminals, you're playing into their strategy. That's what they want you to do. So, instead of doing what they want, we attack them where they're vulnerable -- at their support. That's what we mean by that phrase: you can only defeat the terrorists by destroying their resources and support.
  • The fact that this adolescent, sneering journalist doesn't grasp that, and mocks the idea, merely reveals his own lack of knowledge.

He thinks he's revealing the stupidity of others. Instead, he reveals his own.

don't get too worked up, it's only Rolling Stone

come on, the political articles in that rag are written with the maturity and insight of a 13 year old going through his rebellious phase. It's a bunch of smarter than you hipsters who think they actually know what the hell they're talking about: "yeah maaaaan! Invading Iraq was like, so bogus, maaan!!! Like, save the planet and stuff instead!"

I just glance at the cover of it once in a while and snicker at the self-important article titles: "BLAH BLAH BUSH'S SECRET TORTURE BLAH"  "BLAH BLAH CHENEY OIL WAR BLAH" "GLOBAL WARMING BLAH BONO BLAH PLANET" "LOST WAR IRAQ BLAH BUSH BLAH IRAQ IRAQ KILLING BLAH"