In responding to journalism expert Jay Rosen, Digby discusses what we might call the "media problem." The point she, Glenn Greenwald and others are making is central to the fall election.

Liberal bloggers are convinced that Democrats aren't just running against the Republicans; they're running against a media framing of the parties and the candidates that makes it far more difficult for Democrats to win. But this year it's worse; the Democratic nominee must overcome the media's blind love affair with John McCain, a bias so effective in shielding McCain from criticism it could put McCain in the White House.

McCain's media supporters and apologists understand the game and they know their assignments. The Bush/Cheney maladministration has made the Republican brand toxic. Its catastrophic foreign and economic failures should result in a crushing defeat. So the conservative media's job is to save the Presidency for John McCain, and the way they'll do that is by defending him not only as principled, honest and "centrist," despite his campaign finance dodge, blatant flip-flops, rightwing and religious pandering and surrounding himself with lobbyists (including those who enabled the problems we now face), but more importantly as someone whose policy beliefs are so different from George Bush's that voters can reject Bush and still embrace McCain. It is a breathtaking fraud, and it may succeed.

After McCain's foreign policy speech, major newspapers and network commentators reinforced conservative columnists David Brooks and David Broder concluding that McCain's stated willingness to consult with allies regarding foreign policy matters marked a radical departure from the Bush Administration, even though Bush used similar rhetoric in his speeches. So whatever voters might think about the Bush Administration's foreign catastrophes, these were not reasons to vote against McCain.

Neither Broder nor Brooks can admit that on the critical issues of whether the US should invade Iraq in 2003, or prolong the occupation with additional US forces in 2007-08, or consider withdrawing in 2009, McCain not only supported Bush's unilateral war decisions over allies' objections, he championed them. Reviewing McCain's statements, Glenn Greenwald demolishes the Brooks/Broder argument, here and here, concluding,

[McCain's speech] trumpeted virtually every tenet of the neoconservative faith: to be safe, the U.S. must slay tyranny around the world, spread democracy, bring freedom to the grateful peoples of the Middle East so they turn towards us and away from the Terrorists, using "more than military force" -- but also military force. We'll only be safe by controlling and transforming the Middle East to look the way we want it to look.

McCain is a pure neoconservative in exactly the way that Bush and Cheney are, which is exactly why David Brooks, and like-minded ideologues like Bill Kristol, swoon over McCain's foreign policy "principles."

No matter what he says about listening to others, when it comes to the strategic issues of prolonging America's aggressive war policies and occupations, McCain doesn't care what anyone else thinks. "We're succeeding. I don't care what anyone says," he declared recently, leaving no tolerance for dissenting views or inconvenient facts or the implications for our stressed military.
,
His campaign ads stress that he will never surrender, never give up, never compromise. His "meet McCain" tour describes this attitude as a matter of honor, a duty he owes his military ancestors; it is not a matter for discussion with Europe or Congress. And by calling proposals to plan a withdrawal of US forces, a strategy long supported by a large majority of Americans, as "surrender," he's revealing not only that he won't listen to our allies; he won't even listen to the American people. And that is the defining essence of George W. Bush and Dick "so?" Cheney.

Will the media let go of its fairy tale views and realize that McCain is Bush with a blood oath? Will they realize that losing his temper when challenged is not "a minor thing" but a warning sign for a man as intolerant as this? From Digby:

I desperately want to persuade [the media] to stop being ninnies and jackasses but the only way I've seen to do that is by relentlessly pointing out their foibles and mobilizing the public to hold them accountable for it. If they all wake up tomorrow and begin reporting the race in a way that doesn't seem to come out of junior high slumber parties and boy scout camp, I couldn't be happier. But I think it would be foolish to count on it.