Against Accuracy, For Trivia

I'm mentioned in two columns today with similar themes: that people like me--the liberal elite media, we're called--are playing into Obama's hands by insisting on accuracy from John McCain (according to Bob Novak) and by hoping that, given the mess we're in, this can be an election about big issues (Steven Stark).

Novak writes:

McCain's strategists are infuriated by prestigious political reporters and commentators whom they see supporting Obama's position.

He goes on to misrepresent (a) my questioning of McCain this week and (b)Obama's position on talking to Ahmadinejad, which is muddy, to say the least, but has never included the following statement, "I will meet unconditionally with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad." The fact is that McCain--or, at least, his top aides--seem to have adopted a simple attitude toward the press: Either you come to the barbecue or you're cast into the outer darkness.
In fact, more than a few of McCain's Senate colleagues, from both parties (and not just Chuck Hagel), are wondering what's gotten into him: where did he deposit his civility? Does he really not know who the has the power in Iran? Does he really want to run a Roveian campaign of disinformation--or have the actual debate on the issues that he claims to want?

In criticizing "prestigious political reporters and commentators", Novak fails to mention that many of us, including me, supported McCain's position--and opposed Obama's--on a variety of issues, from free trade to the farm bill. As Swampland readers know, I'm somewhere between McCain and Obama on an Iraq withdrawal plan--in favor of a steady withdrawal, without pause, but also without a strict timetable and end date--although I disagree with McCain on the need for long-term (100 year) U.S. bases in Iraq. But Novak's right: If McCain is going to run sleazy this year--on "his own terms" is Novak's euphemism--I'm going to call him on it.

Stark's argument is pure cynicism: Trashball campaigns are as old as the Republic and therefore we should sit back and enjoy them. And he's right that low-information signaling--bowling and flag pins--are crucial factors for many voters. He's also right that presidential campaigns turn on character more than substance. But he neglects the fact that substance is often used by the public as an insight into character: Lincoln was elected President because he was opposed to slavery. Ronald Reagan was elected because the public had grown tired of the Democratic Party's policies on social and international issues. Bill Clinton was elected because people were concerned about the economy.

That is what happens when we have a big election rather than a small one. The public understands that the country is moving in the wrong direction and demands a change. Right now, 81% of the public feels that way. I do, too.