Harwood touted McCain's "brand" as a "maverick," but didn't note his own role in promoting it
SUMMARY: On Hardball, John Harwood stated: "John McCain's brand ... has been pretty well-established since 2000. He's likable. He's a maverick. He's a war hero. All of that redounds to his benefit." But while citing McCain's purported "brand" as a "maverick," Harwood did not acknowledge his own role in promoting that "brand." Nor did he point out any of McCain's actions that challenge that "brand," such as McCain's rightward shift on high-profile issues such as immigration and taxes, and his growing list of falsehoods.
Referring to an April 25-28 NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll during the April 30 edition of MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews remarked that "even in the toughest of times for [Sen.] John McCain -- with the president unpopular, with the war unpopular, with the recession afoot," voters view McCain "as a person who identifies, enshrines our values more than the two Democrats" running for president. CNBC chief Washington correspondent and New York Times political writer John Harwood replied: "You know, John McCain's brand, Chris, has been pretty well-established since 2000. He's likable. He's a maverick. He's a war hero. All of that redounds to his benefit." But while citing McCain's purported "brand" as a "maverick," Harwood did not acknowledge his own role in promoting that "brand." Nor did he point out any of McCain's actions that challenge that "brand," such as McCain's rightward shift on high-profile issues such as immigration and taxes, and his growing list of falsehoods.
As The New York Times' Elisabeth Bumiller wrote in a March 3 article:
Senator John McCain likes to present himself as the candidate of the "Straight Talk Express" who does not pander to voters or change his positions with the political breeze. But the fine print of his record in the Senate indicates that he has been a lot less consistent on some of his signature issues than he has presented himself to be so far in his presidential campaign.
Mr. McCain, who derided his onetime Republican competitor Mitt Romney for his political mutability, has himself meandered over the years from position to position on some topics, particularly as he has tried to court the conservatives who have long distrusted him.
Prior to Harwood's April 30 appearance on Hardball, both Harwood and Matthews had recently described McCain as a "maverick" despite also noting reasons that term might not be an appropriate description. On the April 16 edition of MSNBC's Morning Joe, during a discussion of McCain's April 15 speech on the economy, host Joe Scarborough asked Harwood, "John, how is Senator McCain's act wearing on Americans?" Harwood responded: "John McCain's act is going to wear very well. Look, this is a guy who has established a brand for himself that has endured, Joe and Mika [Brzezinski, co-host], despite that phase in 2007 when he was getting a lot of flak for sort of flip-flopping and trying to court the right." Similarly, despite questioning a few days earlier how people could "still think" McCain is "a straight-talk maverick when he's been in league with the president," Matthews asserted during an April 15 interview with McCain: "Let me ask you about your Republican Party, because you've been a maverick and a lot of people like you because of that. And I want to ask you how much of a maverick you are."
Media Matters for America has also documented numerous others in the broadcast and print media using the term "maverick" when discussing McCain.
From the 7 p.m. ET, April 30 edition of MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews:
MATTHEWS: OK, let's get to this, gentlemen, 'cause this is not about economics; it's about values. Voters were asked in a new NBC/Wall Street Journal poll if they identify with the background and values of the candidates. John McCain did the best with 54 percent saying they identify with him, 46 percent identify with Hillary, and 45 with Obama. I find it interesting, John Harwood, that even in the toughest of times for John McCain -- with the president unpopular, with the war unpopular, with the recession afoot -- and yet here, there he is seen as a person who identifies, enshrines our values more than the two Democrats.
HARWOOD: You know, John McCain's brand, Chris, has been pretty well-established since 2000. He's likable. He's a maverick. He's a war hero. All of that redounds to his benefit. He had a bio tour recently, which tried to underscore and deepen some of those impressions, so he does have the strongest score. I got to tell you, though, I'm a little bit surprised that Barack Obama did as well as he did on this measure, given this ring of fire that we've been talking about.
CHUCK TODD (NBC News political director): I'll tell you this: The one thing I think we're learning about this election -- and one of our pollsters put together an interesting thing on swing voters for us -- if this is an election on the issues, it's a landslide. The Democratic nominee is going to win. If McCain wins, it won't be because the issues turned to national security, and it won't be because he suddenly found his voice on the economy. It'll be because of that values question. It'll be because people decided, in the words of our pollster, that they wanted -- that they were voting for somebody to be their next-door neighbor. There's a third of the electorate that's sitting there that is thinking about these values issues -- and remember "values" is different to different people. Bill Clinton connected on values because he said he cared about people --
MATTHEWS: Right.
TODD: -- like you. And then George W. Bush won the values argument, sort of the beer-drinking crowd, whatever you want to call it. So there's two ways to go at it. Obama's not doing well on either one of those.
Look guys, John McCain's obit will read...he was a Maverick.
Might as well just grin & bear it.
The media loves saying it. Hell they coined it.
Look guys, John McCain's obit will read...he was a Maverick.
Yes. A 1970 Ford Maverick with the top of the gas tank serving as the trunk floor. It was a very dangerous car, and Gramps McCain is a very dangerous politician.
I think that's why the Founding Fathers gave the Press Constitutional protection. In a Democratic Republic, an informed populace is essential to a successful process. Unfortunately, the modern press has sold its soul to Corporate interests..... that's why we elected an empty-suit sockpuppet as leader of the free world..... twice.
Nerzog,
Time to quit moaning about 2000 and 2004. By my unofficial count, that is about 23,458th time I've read someone complaining about those elections.
Don't worry. Be happy. :-)
Time to quit moaning about 2000 and 2004. By my unofficial count, that is about 23,458th time I've read someone complaining about those elections.
A few questions for you, AA:
Edmund Burke once said "All that is required for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing." If we are to restore faith in our voting process, we need to keep the memories of the 2000 and 2004 elections alive, and vow to do everything possible to make sure that debacles like that NEVER HAPPEN AGAIN.
ps. What do all you progressive posters who defended Rev. Wright have to say now that Obama has flip flopped on disowning Wright?
I thought Obama could no more disown Rev. Wright than disown the black community?
Funny. Maybe I missed it, but I don't see MMFA, or anyone else here for that matter, pointing out this inconsistency.
After what Wright said the other day, I denounce and reject him and realize he's a publicity hound...and a nut.
Does that satisfy you?
AA, I have to ask, since you seem to be about the only one backing McCain in this, what do you say to this?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/01/flashback-read-mccains-mi_n_99585.html
Is he pandering for political support, or is his senility starting to show? (I'm not making fun of his age, one of the first signs of senility is contradicting yourself)
Right wingers won't worry about McCain until he answers a question at a debate, then walks over to the opposing podium for his rebuttal.
Rickyy
You seem to be pretty afaird of the old man. But I guess when one candidate has a higer negative rating that anyone to ever run for president, and the other has 2 years of experience, I would be worried to.
As for Jeremiah Wright, my basic position hasn't changed. The "controversy" has always been a media construction, driven largely by the Troglodytes, and has been given about 100 times more attention than it deserves. I defended Wright, but that was before he pulled his little publicity stunt. I don't think Obama had any other choice.
Nice try, though.
I see these groups.
1. Media - Definitely for McCain
2. African American Voters - definitely for Obama
3. White females - (doubtfully) definitely for Clinton.
4. White males - Whatever they were for before. Depending on working-class, educated, making > X $/year etc
5. Republicans - definitely for McCain
6. Conservatives - 99% for McCain because they hate Clinton and fear what Obama can bring on (anyone saying otherwise is lying)
7. Democrats - Core Democrats, definitely for whoever the nominee is.
8. Liberals - see 7.
9. White / non-white Independents - Will decide the election.
Very polarized electorate thanks to current P & VP (& the previous pair).Minor correction.
No 3. White females should read White Democratic females.
3a. White Republican females - Whoever their husband/boyfriend/father is for.
Good point on 3a. I almost barf every time I hear one of these Republican women call Rush Limbaugh and virtually fellate him over the phone. It's repulsive and unseemly. AAAAK!
Even worse - I heard a guy phone in to Rush's radio pukefest the other day and say that he and his wife home-school their kids, and part of that home-schooling is having the kids listen to Rush's show every day. The kids even refer to Limbaugh as "Uncle Rush".
To me, that constitutes child abuse.
Nerzog, you invoke the concept of the corporate media trying to steer (even dictate) the Public Discourse on the presidential campaign (which of course is true), and also you mention how important an informed electorate is to a Democracy (which is also true)...
And the media hacks in the item also speak a little bit of truth, when they state that a sizable fraction of the electorate (a full third, is the wild overestimation of one of the hacks) can be dissauded from the issues in the campaign, and be drawn away into "values" stuff, and "next door neighbor" preferences (the hack specifically said "...if this is an election on the issues, it's a landslide. The Democratic nominee is going to win. If McCain wins, it [will be] ...because people decided ...that they were voting for somebody to be their next-door neighbor")...
And that truth, spoken by the hack, is the sum of the two truths you invoked:
Add an uninformed fraction (nothing near a third I say) of an electorate, so uninformed that they take their eye off the ball, and ignore the issues...
Plus a media hammering away at that fraction of the electorate, portraying one of the candidates as your next door neighbor all right, but a neighbor who hates America (or at least his Pastor does)...
And what you have as a result is the "values" voter: Someone who has lost sight of the issues, and instead prefers whoever the media has steered him to, as a neighbor you'd like to live next door to.
Clear enough.
This is my gripe: The Democratic candidates themselves actually allow this to happen... not by playing the next door neighbor "values" game (which they do commit that sin), but by allowing that sizable fraction of the electorate to lose sight of the issues.
Example: There is no doubt that 9 out of 10, maybe 19 out of 20 of the American People, can be brought to a respectful listening attentive silence by any of the presidential candidates, when they say the word Iraq (that's how big that issue truly is); and yet, what does Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton think, about what would be their administration's Foreign Policy, toward Iraq in general, and the Democratically elected Maliki government in particular?
The question is simple, and answerable, and of so much importance that it cannot be ignored...
...and yet it is ignored, and we as an electrorate, have little or no idea how Sen. Clinton or Sen. Obama would answer that question.
And it is in the vacuum of a clear National Policy opinion on such an important issue as that (and a vacuum that also includes many other ignored undescribed unexplained opinions on real and important issues)... it is in that vacuum, that the slightest little wind from an incendiary fool in the pulpit, blows that fraction of the electorate one way, or the other...
The slightest little gaffe, or mispeaking (like the word "bitter"), or the least little insignificant thing (like a flag pin), or even the bodily posture and position of the hands, during the playing of the National Anthem or the recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance, becomes a gale-force wind that blows the candidates ship off course...
...simply because the danged thing wasn't anchored, by a loud and clear expression of the issues, of National Policy opinions...
Like: "What would be your administration's Foreign Policy, toward Iraq in general, and the Democratically elected Maliki government in particular?"
Do you see what I mean here? Do you see how in such an empty campaign as the candidates themselves give us (so empty as that neither you or I know the Democratic candidate's answer to the simple but all-important question I posed)... and in that vacuum, the electorate can pitched and rolled, one way and the other (like a ship at sea without the substance of any ballast, or anchor, to hold it steady), steered about by idiot stuff like incendiary fools in the pulpit, and flag pins.
And yet, were you to know Sen. Obama's or Sen. Clinton's answer to the Iraq question that I posed, and were satisfied by it, then no fool in the pulpit or any flag pin nonsense, could dissaude you from supporting their candidacy... could dissaude you from the issues... could turn you into an idiot empty-headed "values" voter, seeking a pleasant and personable next door neighbor, instead of the President of the United States and Commander in Chief of the U.S. Armed Forces.
"...if this is an election on the issues, it's a landslide. The Democratic nominee is going to win. If McCain wins, it [will be] ...because people decided ...that they were voting for somebody to be their next-door neighbor"
I agree, and it's a shame. I blame in part both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama, if McCain sneaks in through that back door, as you neighbor.
I wish Obama had told Stuffalupogus to shove his flag pin question and refused to answer the other trivial snipes, but I guess he's too afraid of making a mistake. My impression is that he's protecting his lead and running out the clock, which is good strategy, but not very satisfying. Hillary can afford to be more aggressive now because she has little to lose.
A romantisized, narrowly defined image. Several parts of that image have to be stretched, cropped, and normalized to properly aline.
The important part of the image is that he is bucking the neocon/shrub/chenny agenda. Curious from at least two points. The questions of why and how he is a "maverick" to the NSC agenda. Which is partially answered by the second. In that he has over this campaign season he has become alined with the NSC agenda in an almost seamless manner. Yet the maverick image remains, can't you just see him rearing back from a distent mesa, sun gleaning off his teeth. Giving forth a mighty"Oh Chist my back is out!"
Why does he need to be critical of or even mention the fact that McCain is self-promoting his maverick image? No kidding!
"Why does he need to be critical of or even mention the fact that McCain is self-promoting his maverick image?" -you
"But while citing McCain's purported 'brand' as a 'maverick,' Harwood did not acknowledge his own role in promoting that 'brand.'" -MMfA
Whenever you would like to apologize...
More projection from mr, do you want fries with that. After I PAY the guy to take my stuff to my new car and give him a generous tip, HE takes the shopping cart back to the store with him. If you need to beg someone for some cans to turn in for the change you need to put in the machines at your local porno shop or to buy another short dog of MD 2020 it will have to come from someone else
Clearly one sided media presentation.
"John McCain is far from being a maverick. He spouts only to gain publicity and then contradicts himself a few weeks later. Why has the Charles Keating affair surfaced again with McCain's favortism towards him and the finance industry? His collaboration with the North Vietnamese during the War? His neglect of his Arizona constituents, which I am one, for over 18 months!! His disapproval of the new GI Bill though he is pro-war and his wife's indictment for drug abuse."
Of course you are and idiot. What was his collaboration with the north vietnamese? Care to expand on your loonely left theory? I doubt it. You just cant deal with the fact that the man is a war hero, and likely the next president. So you spend to much time on Move on and the daily kos, because they speak your language of the radical left. Then again, with the NY Times and PBS, CNN, ABC, and CBS it is all liberal all the time. All we need now is Dan Rather to come back with some more fake documents, and we can have another liberal news event.
I'm still waiting for all that liberal media to weigh in on their collective conduit to Rumsfeld's brain via numerous retired professional patriots.
I see no championing of liberal/progressive issues in the media. Give us a couple of examples. I can give plenty that, regardless of import, never seem to make it to the liberal media.
I just found this little goodie by blogging "John McCain scandal". I wonder what's happening with THIS story....
http://www.americablog.com/2008/02/john-mccains-other-scandal-its-actually.html