Josh Marshall has some fun with porn over on his site today, as TalkingPointsMemo accuses Chris Matthews of “fluffing” John McCain by saying that he only needs 18% to have had a successful Iowa, while Hillary getting a third of a vote is “rejection.” I’m sort of with him on the Hillary standard — given that Edwards is making his stand in perfectly-suited-for-him Iowa, a win is a win there — but why pick on John McCain? In a state where McCain has basically not campaigned until a little flourish here at the end, where he has come out against Iowa’s signature issue (ethanol subsidies), and where he’s competing against five other candidates who have polled in double digits in the last month, 18% is pretty darn good.
Josh has convinced himself that Mitt Romney is still the man to beat in the Republican race for some reason, and attributes any positive discussion of McCain to a pro-McCain bias. I’m not saying there’s no media darling aspect here, but maybe it’s worth wondering if the media is right before we jump to that conclusion every time?
Update at 10:04 EST: Although I’m not making any excuses for some of the ridiculously pro-McCain statements I heard on Fox News just now (really, person who thinks McCain is a bigger winner tonight than Huckabee, the guy whose campaign essentially ends if he loses here? Really?)
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
