A Candidate They Can Disavow

The right-wing punditocracy's hatred of John McCain crested the other day with Ann Coulter's declaration that she'd support Hillary Clinton, were John McCain to get the nomination. According to Coulter, Hilldawg is "more conservative" and stronger in the "War on Terror" having supported the Iraq War and not been so testy about torture. She also got in a couple pot-shots about campaign finance reform and immigration. This denunciation of McCain by the right's talking heads has been seen by most observers as a fit of pique over the public's refusal to pay any attention to their anointed favorites: Rudy, then Romney. That may well be but is that all?

The GOP's witless wonders in media-land have reason to feel a little insecure of late. They've been cheerleaders for the party's two biggest constituencies, bible thumpers and plutocrats for decades now. Neither group is currently in the best PR position and they're none-too-pleased with each other at the moment. The public is not enthused about conservative business as usual.

Enter John McCain, the great maverick of the Republican Party, the man who would buck the powers that be. Except, of course, he's not. There was the John McCain who partnered with Russ Feingold to pass a campaign finance reform bill and stood, momentarily, against his party on the Bush tax cuts but, ever since he bent over backward to kiss Jerry Falwell's ring, America's crustiest presidential candidate has scarcely missed an opportunity to signal to the party elite that he's more than willing to sell it all out for a shot at the White House. He even backpedaled on immigration and all-but lied about his initial reasoning for opposing the tax cuts,

So now we come back to Coulter and Co. throwing eggs at the Straight Talk Express, denouncing a man they should know damned well is every bit their candidate. Are they really incensed at their loss of influence or really desperate to hide that they haven't lost any?