Today’s “Kristol Mess” Fluffery For St. McCain

(Pushing it with that pic, I know…).

The New York Times’ conservative quota hire columnist tried to spin a scenario whereby, even if congressional Repugs get trounced in the fall, that “straight-talking maverick” could still win the presidential election (here).

There is probably much more right-wing mythology that could be exploded in this drivel, but here are three obvious points…

The crucial swing states of Ohio and Pennsylvania (whose primaries Obama also lost to Hillary Clinton) have a fair number of West Virginia-type working-class, culturally conservative voters. The Obama campaign can’t be confident about his prospects there in the fall.

Yeah, I know Kristol and his ilk are going to be perpetually spinning this tale of how Obama supposedly can’t win white, working-class voters (I would argue that, yes, that’s true for a small percentage, but overwhelmingly not as a group), but funny thing; this Quinnipiac University poll taken on May 1st shows Obama losing by a single percentage point to McCain in Ohio (which, as far as I’m concerned, amounts to a statistical tie), and Obama leading McCain in PA (47 percent to 38 percent). And that is with Hillary Clinton’s campaign still alive; Obama will get a boost nationwide when he eventually defeats her.

Another thing: I know Kristol and company want to completely ignore the influence of Ron Paul, but he and his people are going to end up siphoning some votes away from McCain to Obama, which may prove to be the most enduring legacy of Paul’s candidacy.

Also, concerning the recent decision of the California Supreme Court to allow gay marriage…

In 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court redefined marriage in that state, helping to highlight the issues of same-sex marriage and judicial activism for the 2004 presidential campaign. Now the California court has conveniently stepped up to the plate.

…

Since the next president will almost certainly have one Supreme Court appointment, and could have two or three, this difference on judicial philosophy could well matter to voters — and in a way that should help McCain.

And as you can read here (h/t Atrios), the 2003 decision by the Massachusetts court swung that state decisively to Dubya in ’04 – not!

(In that infamous speech Dubya gave at the Knesset last week) Obama took Bush to be alluding to Obama’s willingness to meet, without preconditions, with Iran and North Korea, and attacked Bush. The conventional view in Washington is that Obama was smart to pick a fight with the unpopular Bush. And when McCain intervened, Obama was able to attack Bush and McCain in the same breath. But over the longer term, it can’t be in Obama’s interest to divert voters from a focus on gas prices or health care to the question of what he hopes to achieve by negotiating with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

First of all, Obama and others attacked Dubya because President Highest Disapproval Rating In Gallup Poll History referred to Obama as an appeaser, comparing him to former British PM Neville Chamberlain circa 1938 (Kristol actually does mention that word in quoting Dubya, though of course Kristol has nothing to say about the context).

But as far as meeting with our enemies goes, it’s a funny thing in a way, but as noted here by Media Matters…

Bush's (Knesset speech attacking Obama)… came just hours after The Washington Post reported that Bush's defense secretary, Robert Gates, said that the United States needs to "sit down and talk with" Iran. Not only that, Gates added, "We can't go to a discussion and be completely the demander."

Oops.

Naturally, then, a media firestorm erupted, with the Bush administration and its political allies questioned all day about whether Bush has any idea what he is talking about, whether he has lost control over the Pentagon, whether Gates will be fired, what Gates thinks about Bush's comparison of those (like Gates) who advocate dialogue between the United States and Iran to appeasers of Adolf Hitler, and whether the fiasco will remind voters that the Bush administration's foreign policy has been marked by incompetence and dishonesty, thus doing irreparable electoral damage to John McCain and other Republican candidates.

Sorry -- what was I thinking? That didn't happen.

Instead, much of the news media got busy pretending the Post article didn't exist and that Gates had not undermined Bush's political attack on Obama. Instead, many news outlets simply rushed to repeat Bush's assault over and over again, as though it had merit.

Kristol and his fellow travelers can preoccupy themselves all they want with how Obama is campaigning in opposition (as they see it) to the mindless “Defense of Marriage Act” and other “value voter” trivialities. However, those precious “independent” voters for whom the Repugs concocted such hot-button nonsense as trying to deny same-sex couples the right to adopt and qualify for medical benefits have woken up in light of real issues, such as our economic collapse, failure to provide something approximating universal health coverage and war without end in Iraq, to say nothing of the environment. And the result of that “wakeup” has been highly beneficial to the Democrats.

So much so that Survey USA tells us this (let’s keep working and doing what we can to make sure they’re right).

Update 1 5/19/08: Good point here about the California Supreme Court merely being asked whether or not the same-sex marriage bill would "pass constitutional muster," as opposed to acting like the dreaded "activist judges" (h/t Eschaton).

Update 2 5/19/08: I had a feeling that 41 percent number was wrong (Kristol Mess said no presumptive party nominee had lost by that much in a primary), but kudos to Think Progress for exploding that lie; every week is a new adventure in pundit stupidity for the "stalwart" of The Weekly Standard (and the Times, of course).

Update 5/21/08: Welcome to the Times' neocon pundit errata party, BoBo!