Hominid Views

I cannot think of a more apt term to describe the befallen state of the McCain campaign. It’s sad, really.

The latest example of over-the-top craziness came in a conference call in which McCain campaign strategist and advisor Steve Schmidt launched an attack on the New York Times:

But let’s be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by an standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama. There is no level of public vetting with regard to Sen. Obama’s record, his background, his past statements. There is no level of outrage directed at his deceitful ads. This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let’s not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is. Everything that is read in the New York Times that attacks this campaign should be evaluated by the American people from that perspective, that it is an organization that has made a decision to cast aside its journalistic integrity and tradition to advocate for the defeat of one candidate, in this case John McCain, and advocate for the election of the other candidate, Barack Obama.

First, it’s stupid to attack the press (or the media) when you are running for public office. It’s downright crazy-nuts-o to go on a rampage against one of the most influential and respected media sources.

This behavior is, quite simply, biting the hand that feeds you…to the public. Specifically, you go from being served on a platter, garnished by strips of bacon, to being sent through the meat grinder, flung against the wall, scraped-up, and served out of a spittoon.

Besides, the behavior leads to unpleasant side-effects like cry baby videos.

A far, far better strategy would have been to debunk (with facts and figures) the information about which you disagree.

Secondly, when ranting during a big-ol’ media conference call about how unfair the New York Times is for calling you a liar—and, listen-up, ’cause this is important—don’t continue by presenting factually inaccurate statements (or…um…lies) about your opponent. Someone will notice, and point out your exaggerations and factual inaccuracies. You’ll be diagnosed with a compulsive inability to be honest and forthcoming with the facts. And you’ll be accused of lying by former supporters.

A vicious cycle ensues.