OTB's James Joyner takes me to task for my "long rant" about how the hiring of Michael Goldfarb as John McCain's communications guru "proves McCain=Bush", adding:
I’m afraid I don’t get it. I’m only vaguely familiar with Goldfarb’s work as a blogger but he’s apparently been in the writing business for quite some time, including a stint at Time.com more than a decade ago. One presumes he’s qualified to write press releases and carry out other duties associated with the job which, as described by Bill Kristol in the announcement post, is pretty low-vis: “He’ll be focusing on their online activities.”
Well, now. What Radley Balko said, I guess, though let me add that my initial gripe was with what this appointment reveals about the kind of politics Team McCain is going to be engaging in, and whether or not they would be a break from those of "the past". And a quick look over the most recent weeks of Mr. Goldfarb's repertoire of "online activities" - Nancy Pelosi's observation that the Iranians helped to tame hostilities in Basra amounts to "glorification of the enemy"; the New York Times is "committed ... to fighting no wars at all" (Really? I didn't get that memo); Democrats concerned about the strength of the Iraqi government are "divorced from the reality-based community"; scummy campaign advisers are simply the result of "day jobs which may create conflicts of interests"; the Democratic party is "chicken"; and so on ad nauseam - suggests that his contributions to the McCain message may end up being ... how shall we say? ... less than statesmanlike. Is Goldfarb "qualified" to make such contributions? Of course. But I stand by my initial expression of disgust.
Comments