Recently, John McCain has taken to boasting, "I know how to win wars." But he isn't talking about Iraq. As his gutter politics of the last week show, McCain is talking about the "character war" against Barack Obama.

As predicted, McCain is turning to the Republicans' tried and untrue formula for success from 2000 and 2004. That is, because Americans overwhelmingly prefer Democratic positions and priorities across almost the entire spectrum of issues, the GOP has to make the race about something else. This year as in 2000 and 2004, the Republicans will turn the race into a presidential personality contest. And to win it, they need to manufacture a "character gap" between John McCain and Barack Obama:

The data is clear. If the election is about the economy, health care and Iraq, John McCain cannot become the 44th president. Only if the GOP succeeds once again in transforming the race into a media medley about lapel pins, angry ministers and Muslim-sounding middle names can the Republicans hope to maintain their hold on the White House.

The right-wing media machine is already hard at work on producing the 2008 version of the character gap. The supposed elitism of Barack Obama (and not the perpetually out-of-touch John McCain) has already emerged as an indispensable, if demonstrably false, conservative story line.

As it turns out, that assessment grossly underestimated the effort of the McCain campaign to paint Obama as a foreign, untrustworthy and literally un-American threat. It's only the beginning of August, and John McCain has already described Obama as a traitor, a genocide enabler, a "celebrity," an ally of Hamas and a "socialist" whose "word cannot be trusted." So much for McCain's pledge to run a "respectful" campaign.

To be sure, if anyone knows about being on the receiving end of "ugly brand of politics," it is John McCain. McCain, after all, was brutalized by the campaign of George W. Bush in 2000. But just in case there was ever any doubt about the course this election would take, the New York Times provided confirmation on Thursday. The Times reported that McCain's effort to "create a negative narrative about Barack Obama is being coordinated by veterans of President Bush's 2004 bid." So McCain not learned at the feet of the master, he's hired his henchmen as well.

In his 2007 book The Big Con, Jonathan Chait described how Republicans consistently win elections despite almost universal disdain for their policies among the American people. In a nutshell, Chait argues that Republicans must convert elections into contests of character because they simply can't win on issues. While their man, be it George W. Bush or John McCain, is the "authentic" guy you'd "like to have a beer with," the GOP drives the media conventional wisdom that paints the likes of Al Gore, John Kerry and now Barack Obama as effete, out-of-touch elitists whose positions change with the wind:

"Media outlets functionally affiliated with the Republican Party have been able to create news that makes its way into the nonpartisan media. It is a kind of machine that manufactures images of character.

The Republicans' seminal insight was that the random process by which small events come to wield great symbolic insight into the character of presidential candidates didn't have to be random. It was possible to prime the pump, in a way." (p.169)

And it works. The 2000 and 2004 exit polls clearly show the Republican Party succeeded both in portraying the presidential contest as being about character and in defining the accepted media narrative for candidates Bush, Gore and Kerry. Eight years ago, 24% of voters claimed being "honest/trustworthy" was the quality that mattered most; among them, George W. Bush trounced Al Gore by 80% to 15%. In 2004, Bush walloped the supposed flip-flopper John Kerry by 70% to 29% among those claiming honesty was the most important presidential attribute. Among those wanting a "strong leader," Bush swamped Kerry by a staggering 75 points.

A corollary to the Republicans' quadrennial character crusades is the necessary obfuscation of their own policy prescriptions. As the Politico detailed just today, the "policy plans of John McCain have been notably short on details" in what it deemed a "paper gap." And that's no accident. For example, on Social Security, where John McCain has hedged about his past commitment to follow in Bush's privatization footsteps, McCain senior adviser Taylor Griffin laughably argued:

"The history of the Social Security debate has taught that too many specifics, especially during a presidential campaign, has polarized the debate."

Similarly, senior economic adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin complained about a Tax Policy Center analysis showing the McCain budget plan would literally produce trillions in red ink. "He has been very clear that he'd like to develop an alternative simplified tax," Holtz-Eakin said, adding, "We do not yet have a specific proposal."

And when the details are a hindrance and not a help, it's easy to get them wrong. In the wake of his multiple, confused reversals about his "no new taxes" pledges, even the reliable Republican mouthpiece the Wall Street Journal asked, "Is John McCain Stupid?"

Which isn't to say that some of the media haven't taken notice of McCain's dumpster-diving brand of politics. The Washington Post's Eugene Robinson declared simply, "so much for St. John." Joe Klein of Time lamented:

"A few months ago, I wrote that John McCain was an honorable man and he would run an honorable campaign. I was wrong."

As he's made quite clear, John McCain can live with criticism like that. After all, he's got character.