The Reverse Wes Clark

Let's be clear: John McCain's campaign had to distance himself significantly from Phil Gramm this week, even suggesting that they're no longer on speaking terms.

GERSH: Is Senator Gramm still giving advice to Senator McCain?

HOLTZ-EAKIN: No.

GERSH: No.

HOLTZ-EAKIN: At — I haven’t spoken to Senator Gramm since the comments took place, and I’m not expecting to.

This is despite the fact that among conservative movement types, Gramm's comments are being seen as largely correct. Some are saying it on technical grounds, that the country hasn't technically slipped into recession based on the outdated statistics which govern that decision, the ones that are totally disconnected to working-class Americans' lives. Others, like George Will, simply agree that Americans "are the crybabies of the western world."

Traditional media outlets have finally picked up on the fact that the Gramm comments and McCain's cluelessness on Social Security and health care led to a pathetically bad week, despite it being the week where the campaign message would be reset and more tightly focused. And hardcore conservatives are seeing McCain's "gaffes" resulting from their core beliefs, and his distancing from them as a repudiation of economic conservatism. And they don't trust him already.

Of course, Gramm helped shape McCain's policies, and on the overwhelming majority of domestic issues McCain is exactly in line with the President. But a significant segment of the conservative base sees Gramm as fundamentally correct and brave, and they see his ouster as a betrayal.

Sound familiar?

In fact both sides are having problems with their base as they lurch to the center.

UPDATE: This is howlingly funny.

Obama ran an ad calling McCain—McSame in the economy. Republican Governor Mark Sanford of South Carolina went blank trying to think up any differences between John McCain and George Bush’s economic policies when Blitzer asked him to name some. After stammering for a minute, he brought up NAFTA? Say, what? Blitzer then said they had no differences on NAFTA. Oh, and then Sanford mentioned McSame’s opposition to earmarks. That’s sure going to cut your gas prices. (rough transcript)

Blitzer: Are there any significant economic differences between what the Bush administration has put forward over these many years as opposed to John McCain’s support?

Sanford: Yea, I mean for instance take, you know, ummm, ahhh, take for instance the issue of, ahhhh..(knocks on table) I’m drawing a blank. I hate it when I do that, particularly on TV. Take for instance the contrast between NAFTA. I mean, I think the bigger issue is credibility in where one is coming from. I mean, to that position are they consistent where they come from? John McCain has consistently stood against earmarks throughout his tenure in the US Senate. Regrettably, the President has not been exactly busy with the veto pen.

Now Mark Sanford, who has impeccable conservative credentials, will be tossed under the proverbial bus. But it's John McCain making this problem by having a hard-right domestic policy that you can't tell the truth about because it's designed to be hidden.