The other day, Slate's executive editor Jacob Weisberg wrote a piece flogging for John McCain. This sort of fawning for John McCain is nothing new, he's been a press favorite for several years now and for good reason - he's unpredictable enough to give good copy and honest enough to not always tow the party line. For thinking people, especially ones who don't particularly care for the Republican party line, this is good. Fair enough. If asked, I would certainly pick McCain over Bush ten out of ten times. But somehow McCainaanites always manage to turn every little bit of his political maneuvering into substance and principle.
Weisberg begins by acknowledging that McCain's new rightward tack is political machination and therefore a little disappointing. But he then carefully assures us that this political posturing is a necessary evil if we are to bask in the glorious possibility of a McCain presidency. McCain's pandering is "politically shrewd" and if we read the "smoke signals" correctly we can divine that he is the moderate Jacob Weisberg hopes for. Of course, we must also discount his record in the 1980's for that was also a more conservative phase for the senator. You just have to dig deep enough and then you too will see that John McCain is a good guy.
But for some reason, that same generosity of spirit isn't afforded Democrats. "Kerry," he tells us, has, "never demonstrate[d] any real political courage," and Howard Dean, he warns us, is prone to making the occasional, "injudicious comment"! Oooohhhh. By injudicious comment it's fairly clear he means stuff that is true. Stuff that it the mouth of a reflective saint like McCain is critical and thought provoking, but in a Democrat is a "political gaffe." Well, they are considered gaffes because the press writes about how Dean's comment was impolitic instead of exploring its truth quotient. For some reason, gentlemen like Weisberg afford McCain a whole lot more leeway.