Wednesday, February 27, 2008

Right and Wrong Prediction

For those scoring at home, I was both right and wrong on one of my predictions from Super Tuesday. I had noted that the vitriol coming from conservative commentators about McCain was only primary bluster. Here's what I said:

“I predict that they were just trying to scare their base away from McCain for Super Tuesday, and will find some trivial reason to support McCain again by November.”
From the LA Times:

A controversial New York Times story accusing Sen. John McCain of an untoward relationship with a Washington lobbyist set off a furor among readers and journalists, and seemed to unify conservative commentators around the presumptive Republican presidential nominee.
Although “by November” was vague, and technically accurate, I never thought their “opposition” would last less than two weeks. So, for estimating the duplicity of Limbaugh and others in terms of months rather than in terms of days, I feel like I got this more wrong than right, since it should not have been that hard to predict. Dang.

Despite all the ranting by conservatives about this story, it is by far the best possible time to report it. Had it come out before he wrapped up the race, he probably would not have been nominated, which would have been bad for Republicans (despite his weaknesses, he’s still the best shot the Republicans have). By releasing it immediately after he won the nomination, and as far away from November as possible, it will be a forgotten, buried story by November.

Actually, I think I will amend that prediction. The issue of the depravity of the NY Times, and liberals in general, will live on forever in the conservative blogosphere. But the story of McCain's ties to lobbyist will not be an issue come November.


brownie said...

Politicians having ties to lobbyists is hardly an issue, it's a daily occurance.

Tim said...

From what I understand listening to (those right-wing nutjobs over at) NPR, the NYT article wasn't really about McCain's relationship with the lobbyist, but rather how politically naive he can be sometimes (ie, not realizing how his relationship, however innocent, might look to the public.)

Of course, understanding that distinction would require a level of nuance that's not generally practiced among the likes of Rush Limbaugh.

And I agree that this was very bad timing if they really were out to get him.

Dan S said...

Yea, I don't get the timing of it at all.