Charlie’s in a spot of trouble for saying in a Fortune Magazine profile on McCain, that if there were to be another attack on the US, then it would be a “big advantage” for McCain in the election, because, as Fortune Magazine (apparently in lockstep with the McCain campaign) puts it, “on national security, McCain wins.” Black attributed McCain’s primary victory in
Say what? Who knew that those hardy New Englanders were such delicate flowers, that their vote could hinge on what some old codger had to say about the killing of a former leader of
Black was later forced to apologize, and McCain was forced to do the “what? who? why, I don’t even know that dude” dance.
I got a couple of thoughts on this:
- Black should apologize all right. He should apologize for saying that McCain beats Obama on national security. Or is he not aware that his candidate doesn’t know which side of the whole Sunni v. Shi’a throwdown that al Qaeda is even on?
- Does this whole thing smell suspiciously like we’ve just stepped in a big pile of Andrew Card’s “you don’t introduce new products in August”?
- Perhaps the political season is making me paranoid, but I think this was no mistake. The narrative the Republicans have prepared for the media is that McCain wins on national security, and once they’ve established that narrative, then all that remains is creating the event, or the fear of the event, that will require voters to put our savior McCain in the Oval Office. And if a trusted campaign aide has to be discredited in order to establish that crucial media narrative, then so be it. That's what those guys are for.