McCain reaches out to blogs…on the left; Update: “A new standard for transparency and accountability”
Scroll down for updates…
The McCain campaign holds weekly blogger conference calls with its candidate. There are many questions I know you’d like asked, but I’ve never been able to ask them because I haven’t been one of the privileged few conservative bloggers allowed into the McCain sanctum to ask those questions for you.
Yesterday, I learned that several far left-wing blogs were invited to participate in The Maverick’s blogger conference call session (it’s part of that Big Vision Thing). I e-mailed McCain’s New Media guy, Patrick Hynes, asking if I could participate in the next blogger conference call.
After all, McCain said yesterday he’ll “listen to any idea that is offered in good faith and intended to help solve our problems, not make them worse” and “will set a new standard for transparency and accountability” and “will work with anyone, of either party, to make this country safe, prosperous and proud.”
If he’s willing to take questions from hostile liberal bloggers, why not take some from conservative bloggers who represent substantial readerships with dissenting views on how best to make this country “safe, prosperous, and proud?”
I’ll keep you updated.
Here’s the WashTimes’ account of McCain “widening his dialogue” with blogs on the left, including a blogger who posts at The Huffington Post–and even non-political blogs:
Sen. John McCain’s presidential campaign is trying to tap a new audience of potential voters by taking his campaign message straight to liberal and nonpolitical issues-based blogs, which reach millions of readers but don’t often delve into conservative politics.
The strategy was in full swing yesterday when Mr. McCain invited non-conservative bloggers to join his regular blogger conference call, just hours after he delivered a major speech previewing his war strategy and other priorities for a first presidential term…
…Mr. McCain’s campaign said the Web outreach is a logical extension of an attempt to reach voters beyond his base. It also builds on his successful use of conference calls with conservative bloggers during the Republican primary, which blunted many of the harshest criticisms of the senator.
“The plan is to take the work we’ve already built on with conservative bloggers and to open up a dialogue with non-conservative bloggers and even nonpolitical bloggers,” said Patrick Hynes, Mr. McCain’s point man for blog outreach.
“We hope to be the most accessible and transparent campaign in history, to take advantage of what we think is one of the campaign’s strongest assets, which is Senator McCain himself, and frankly to empower voters who are also bloggers to get the answers they need to decide who to vote for.”
Even sports bloggers will get a chance to hang with McCain:
Going forward, Mr. Hynes said, the campaign would like to have Mr. McCain talk to sports bloggers, too, as a way to “humanize John McCain as something other than a carbon-copy politician running for office, delivering talking points.”
On yesterday’s call, Mr. McCain fielded seven questions, including three from non-conservative bloggers: Kate Sheppard, political reporter for environmental Web site Grist.org; Joanne Bamberger of PunditMom (http://punditmom1. blogspot.com); and Erin Kotecki Vest, who blogs at catchall site BlogHer.com as well as liberal sites HuffingtonPost.com and MOMocrats.com.
“I give them an A for effort,” Ms. Vest said in a phone interview after the conference call.
She asked Mr. McCain whether the vision he laid out yesterday of U.S. troops succeeding in Iraq by 2013 didn’t amount to the sort of timetable he has criticized when Democrats propose a specific date for withdrawal.
Mr. McCain shot right back: “Either you didn’t read or didn’t understand my speech. One of the two.”
Ms. Vest said she “read it and understood it just fine, and I don’t understand how 2013 isn’t a date.”
She said she doesn’t expect bloggers to be as nice as some of the traditional media have been in asking him questions, and was thankful for the chance.
“The fact that I could ask my question and have it smacked down is farther than a lot of people could get,” she said.
Yeah, tell me about it.
***
This is indeed an instructive example of how a McCain White House would run: He’ll talk to the far left. He’ll talk to “acceptable” conservatives. But the grass-roots Right? Immigration enforcement proponents? You’ll be as out of luck as you would be with Barack Obama in office.
Commenter MadMoney: “I need a list of the pre-approved conservative blogs so I can read those and learn to love the change we deserve.”
Heh. You’re screwed.
***
Update 10:17am: I kid you not. I just received an e-mail from Republican Internet strategist David All touting McCain’s liberal blogger outreach.
It is titled: “McCain: Model of effective blogger outreach” and touts the Washington Times article:
I wanted to share with you a story that quotes me running on the front page of today’s Washington Times which reports on John McCain’s willingness to reach beyond his likely allies in the blogosphere to disarm his critics on the left and further amplify his message with niche bloggers.
And that’s what’s so noxious about this entire illusion of “outreach.” Not that McCain exercises his prerogative to shut out unacceptable conservative blogs, but that he and his promoters are so self-congratulatory about their illusion of inclusion.
Update 10:35am: Now, the RNC is sending out the Washington Times article. Just got an e-mail from the RNC online communications director: “If you post on it, please can you send me a link.”
I did.
Update 11:36am Eastern: Just heard from Patrick Hynes: “Yes, you will be invited to all future calls.”
Stay tuned.
Hey, now that the McCain campaign is embracing a “new standard of transparency and accountability,” how about opening up the weekly blogger conference calls to other conservative bloggers who haven’t had a seat at the table?
Post your recommendations in comments.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- The Conservative Pulse: Noonan on the Republican Party, Mitch for VP?, and more at The Liberty Preservation Alliance
- Media Mythbusters Blog » Blog Archive » Media Bias Roundup - 05/16/08
- Interesting McCain Speech « Tai-Chi Policy
- Invitation To A McCain Blogger Conference Call - Black Bear Blog - Black Bear Blog is for hunters, fishermen, and outdoor enthusiasts.
- Liberty Pundit
- Advice for McCain « Obi’s Sister
- Access to 2008 Candidates for Prez: What It Might Mean for Bloggers
- Meet the New Press… International Baccalaureate-Palooza!
- GraniteGrok
- The Republican Party’s Resident Minority show’s her lameness « The American Nationalist News Service
- The McCain Blogger Call, again (!) | MY Vast Right Wing Conspiracy
- Radio Left
- Tragic Tales of Woe « The Poor Man Institute
- Michelle Malkin » 31,072 scientists John McCain needs to talk to
- McCain excludes Malkin from blog conference calls - Southern Maryland Community Forums
- Blogs Receive More Clout Than Ever in 2008 Presidential Campaign | Blog World Expo Blog
- Right Wing Nation » Blog Archive » It’s About Time
- The Other McCain: RNC/McCain fusion
- McCain excludes Malkin from blog conference calls - Southern Maryland Community Forums
- Michelle Malkin » When the shoe is on the other foot
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: John McCain
Ed Driscoll
» Charges Filed In Kenneth Gladney Case
The Other McCain
» Alan Colmes, having fun at #1Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas SpecialMudville Gazette
» The five-year planNewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin Rises
Ok, you guys are obviously doing the guy thing and treading the thin line of what is supposed to be true and what is really true. If you guys can’t admit that what the Constitution says or was intended to say is different than reality than you are definitely doing more than just disagreeing, you may be smoking something. Which would actually mean you may be all right in voting libertarian, hmmmm, but I digress.
While it may not be how it was intended, the fact is that the SCOTUS flexed its muscle with the Marshall court pretty early on and has taken on the role of being the sole interpretor of the laws of this land. Is this right according to the Federalist Papers and what one of the authors of this intended or acted when he was Chief Justice, no.
Everything involved with the central gov’t is about Power and the courts wanted their “rightful” place at the head of the table also.
It is like Congress handing over the law giving the right to declare war. To keep from having to do it, they in reality have handed this right to the President, who can’t officially declare war, but well, you know and I am sure if we want to debate authorization for war over declaration we can do that too.
This is what you said:
I responded that the three branches of government are separate but equal. No one branch is more powerful than the other. The Supreme Court – just one facet of the judicial branch – is not the ultimate authority.
If the President declared that in his opinion, the law meant whatever he thought it meant, would you accept it so casually?
It was not actually in Marshall that the Court claimed that power. It was not until the 1950’s that the Court proclaimed that it’s own edicts were identical with the Constitution. The proper response is for the other branches to size their own power back from the court.
Of course, they generally approve of what the court does, and that it can do it without having to deal with the pesky voters.
*sigh*
Yes, flenser, I’ve read all of that. Too bad what it describes is opinion, not fact. Yes, even the Federalist Papers were opinion, not law. Much of the opinion in the Papers was incorporated into our present system, however not all was.
flenser, we’re talking about the way things ARE, not the way we might want them to be. Yes, I would agree and admit that the SCOTUS basically took it upon themselves to be the arbiter of issues of constitutionality, but that doesn’t change the fact that IN FACT, they now ARE the final arbiter of those issues. Bork and Levin are great minds, and they have (in my opinion) fantastic ideas, however again, we are talking about the way things are, not the way we might like them to be – or even the way they should be.
So again, in practical terms – not the way we might like them to be, or even the way they “should have been”, if SCOTUS is not the final arbiter of issues of constitutionality in this country, who is?
It’s wonderful to have ideals, and to fight for those ideals, but until something different is put into place, we have to deal with the situation that we have – no matter how unpalatable that situation may be.
BTW, I don’t want to grant SCOTUS any sort of sweeping powers. They already have that power. If we don’t like it as citizens, then it’s up to us to change the way things are. Until then, this is the system we have – and for the most part, it works better than any other system on the planet.
khan:
*double sigh*
Please take what I said in context with the quote. That statement was meant to say that SCOTUS is the ultimate authority when it comes to questions of the law. Nothing more, nothing less.
Please don’t play that game.
True enough Flenser, I couldn’t agree more and unfortunately, isn’t seizing power “back” the most difficult thing to do. It is comparative to trying to get your tax money back after you have given them the right to take it (thanks Woody Wilson).
I guess no matter where the power was officially claimed, it had been set in motion for years. The balance of power is constantly swinging and no doubt we have really been seeing the power of the courts throughout this land over the last decade and a half.
Thank you Donut44.
You’re right.
flenser, khan:
Gotta run for the weekend. Interesting back and forth (for the most part, still not sure why you want to think I’m a liberal though, flenser).
Anyway, no hard feelings on this end. Have a good weekend.
The opinion of some of the more influential Framers of the Constitution. You don’t think that their opinions carry more weight than your own?
No, we are taking about what conservatives believe. And conservatives do not believe what you are saying. They do not believe that the Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on the Constitution.
So your “conservatism” consists of conserving the changes which liberals have made? This is not conservatism at all.
I get the distinct impression that you’re not exactly on board with the whole “fight for those ideals” part. Politics is about making your changes in preference to other peoples changes. I’d think a long time conservative activist like you would know that.
And you are defending that power, and calling me a fascist for arguing that they should not have it. Read back through the thread.
Yes, I get that you’re a defender of liberalism. I just don’t see why you call yourself a conservative.
I can just hear you back in the welfare debate in the ’90’s. “This is the system we have. It’s silly to fight against it. Besides, isn’t America great even with it?”
Hey flenser,
I’ll say it again. It’s people like you who give conservatism a bad name. But if it helps you sleep tonight to think I’m a liberal and you just pwned me, then go right ahead.
Meanwhile, I’ll go rejoin my real life.
drone, I like the way you are now agreeing with me that the Court should not have the power they have.
Because you started out by calling me an enemy of the republican system of government for saying exactly that. I guess I changed your mind, though you won’t admit it.
And yet, you can never quite explain how.
Just one of the multitude of things you can never explain.
You argue like one. Calling those who disagree with you “fascists” for instance.
You also seem to be cool with what liberals have done with the courts.
Finally! You got something correct!
I’ve waited such a long time.
I like to remember a quote of Madison’s from one of his letters, which I can only paraphrase:
If a law does not decend from the principles layed out in this constitution, or its amendments, it matters not that such a law has been written, passed and enacted, nor that the Supreme Court has held its Constitutionality. This law may then be enforced by the The Administrative branch with whatever penalities are attached.
It is still not a legal law.
Of course, this was from a man who also answered, when asked who should be garunteed[sp?] firearms: every citizen, excluding lawyers and Congressmen.
The Dred Scott decision passed SCOTUS’s “Constitutional tests”, too. Would you have turned excaping slaves in?
- martin.musculus
Hmmmm,
And, this person votes?
This experiment is in deep, DEEP trouble.
[sigh]
Now, THERE’S a brilliant bit of logic.
A hardworking Canadian Citizen, lawfully attempting to gain U.S. Citizenship for he, and his wife, while at the same time, violating our laws, by hiring illegal aliens.
Someone, throw a net over this clown.
Michelle,
In fairness, John McCain has ALWAYS taken questions from conservative bloggers with substantial readerships who have dissenting views, and he has taken their questions. I’ve been calling in since before I was a supporter, just as I would have with all the other candidates had there been the opportunity. I’m absolutely certain he’d have been happy to have you interested in the calls. In fact, you are on the official campaign blogroll. So are some other conservatives who aren’t exactly in his corner, along with some supporters. (Notably, no liberal blogs are there.)
Actually, at some of the earlier calls, MOST of the questions were from conservatives with dissenting views. There’s no reason you couldn’t have been there; the difference is, those bloggers (i.e. some at Human Events, Red State, Polipundit, etc.) were on Patrick Hynes’ blog outreach email list. He put out the call a very long time ago for bloggers, and was met with a whole lot of “hell no” answers (which I saw because some stupidly hit “reply to all”). Others, like me, welcomed the campaign outreach so we could be better informed. I was on the FDT, Romney, and Huckabee lists as well (Giuliani’s emails were virtually non-existent, for some reason). I called in to the McCain blogger calls with an open mind, even when I was still a die-hard FredHead – and I was a Fredhead before most (since January 07).
John McCain has not ever excluded conservatives, whether they support him or not. It’s a shame more of us haven’t made the effort to get information from the campaign. It was at these blogger calls where he answers ALL questions, where I decided to support him when Fred dropped out – and he was an easy choice for me at that point.
It’s all about that blog outreach email list. If anyone wants on it, I’m sure all they have to do is ask.
(And it’s not like people on that list aren’t blogging about this stuff, anyway, but then I know at least I have lost readers who don’t want to hear anything positive about John McCain. Gotta love the narrow-mindedness.)
It’s a country, you moron, not an “experiment”.
Still waiting for an explnation as to why we should admit anyone who wants to come here, simply because they are hardworking. That describes 3/4 of the people on the planet.
Or is the important condition that they be friends of yours?
bamapachyderm, did anyone ask McCain about immigration on this conference call?
I saw a whole bunch of questions on foreign policy, and none on defending America. Looked to me like a very odd bunch of “conservative” bloggers.
Flenser, NO, nobody asked, because this was probably the 50th or so conference call with him. It’s certainly been asked in other ones with him, though. Generally, people stick to topics that are currently buzzing through the media. I say “generally,” because occasionally there are different questions that one might not expect.
Do you even know who was at the conference call? I was there, and I don’t even know everyone who called in. However, Jim Geraghty, Michael Goldfarb, and Jennifer Rubin certainly ARE conservatives, as am I.
Furthermore, at least one from Red State, possibly Ed Morrissey, definitely at least one from Human Events, and plenty of others with unassailable conservative credentials were there, and usually are there in other calls.
I’m not making it up about Hynes getting his head bitten off when he first asked people about the email list something like a year ago. Most people appreciate it when they’ve asked not to be contacted if their request is honored. I’m guessing that if you had been contacted about getting on the email list, you’d probably have said “no thanks,” would you? Well, then you would also not have had the blogger call information.
Furthermore, I’ve personally invited conservative blogger friends who aren’t McCain supporters and aren’t on the email list if they’d like to call in. I let everyone in my email group of bloggers (Cotillion) know. Some call in, others don’t because they can’t make it for whatever reason. But it’s not like they aren’t welcome – I’ve asked Patrick every time if I could invite others and he’s always said “yes, of course.”
I suppose I could just as easily have emailed Michelle about the blogger calls as anyone else, but based on her opinion of McCain, I figured such an email would be met with disbelief and left unanswered. My mistake, I guess.
Personally, I think it’s silly to assume the worst in everything, with regard to anything but especially to the Republican candidate. I don’t expect any conservative or Republican is going to march in lockstep with our elected leaders, but it’d be nice if people could at least be open-minded enough to consider that maybe they aren’t out to get you. The so-called McCain antipathy toward conservatives is wildly exaggerated, if not pure fantasy. But then, if you want to feel persecuted, I suppose that’s your choice. I’m a lifelong conservative, and I don’t feel that way. I don’t agree with everything McCain is for, but I don’t agree with everything ANY candidate is for. 80% is more than good enough for me.
“None on defending America.”
LOL. Really. LOL.
Goldfarb and Rubin are not conservatives. Not American conservatives, at least.
Geraghty is a silly kid.
You are deluded. What more does the man have to do, formally state “I hate conservatives”? He’s lifted most of his agenda for the NYT. If you still think he’s a conservative you are beyond hope.