I really like Max Bergman's point that John McCain's approach to foreign policy is best understood as that of a television pundit, not a public policy professional. Give the guy his credit: He knows how to get on the teevee. That the sort of hysterical thinking he's adopted in order to get on the teevee locks him into unfortunate public policy commitments, well, that's an acceptable price. But buried within Bergman's point is anf alternative universe in which Democrats had decided to redefine John McCain as a gloryhound whose career has been guided by an obsessive ache for media coverage. From realist to neocon, environmentalist to driller, maverick to party man, there's more than enough raw material in McCain's shimmying to define the guy however you want. "Maverick" could have been redefined as an epithet, this year's version of "flip-flopper." But his supposed political opponents have been uninterested in actually using any of it. Barack Obama appends his every mention of McCain with a disclaimer about his enormous esteem for McCain's service and patriotism. He says, in other words, that McCain does indeed exhibit an unquestionable commitment to high-minded public service. Then he sometimes says McCain is wrong on some policies. That's charming and all, but as Mike Tomasky says, it's not enough. The liberal allergy to attacking character rather than conclusions may be admirable, but it doesn't exactly help them win elections. What's more frustrating is that, in McCain's case, it's accurate. He may be a nice guy, but as a public figure, he's got no core. Indeed, he's traded on that explicitly in this election, assuring conservatives he's one of them but hinting to journalists that he's secretly bemused and contemptuous of their ideology. This is backed up by the record. In 2001 and 2002, he was one of the least predictable members of Senate, breaking with his party constantly. By 2006, he was a party-line voter. What changed? His incentives. He decided not to pursue a career as an independent candidate for president and instead campaign for the Republican nomination. It's a neat trick. Flip-flopper becomes maverick, and what lost Kerry the election now keeps McCain afloat. Liberals have a tendency to blame the media for indulging this record, but it's not really the media's fault. If McCain agrees with his wonderful reputation and Barack Obama agrees with his wonderful reputation, who are they to argue?
