Straight Talk

One interesting thing about politics is that you might think that when a politician develops a reputation for honesty, the way Saint John of Arizona has, that from that day forward he needs to be super-scrupulous about telling the truth. Otherwise, voters who might dismiss a small fib from a "regular" politician will suddenly be outraged. In truth, the reverse is the case. Thus, Mac was not only Back last night, but appears to have made his patently false accusation that Mitt Romney favored a timetable for withdrawal from Iraq the centerpiece of his argument at last night's debate. Shocking stuff. McCain's made this claim before, everyone who's looked at it concluded that it wasn't true, and so McCain . . . just did it again in a higher-profile forum.

Naturally, Jonathan Martin's Politico article on the subject was given the headline "Romney falls into McCain trap on Iraq" rather than, say, "McCain Lies His Ass Off."

Comments

I think noted political scientist Stephen Colbert could better explain that McCain's high truthiness level comes from his willingness to speak truth from his gut, not the weaker, unmanly, possibly anti- Commander In Chief "truth" from the so-called "brain".

Posted by El Cid | January 31, 2008 7:05 AM

McCain looked like a bumbling idiot last night talking about "weeds" and "timetables." And yet, at least now no one's mentioning his pathetic dodge when it came to the economy question. War = good for McCain no matter what.

Posted by Alexander | January 31, 2008 7:17 AM

That's because the powers that be have decided that lying is A-OK. This has always been the gist of my analysis of Republican power. I use the phrase, "It's the lying, stupid!" to sum this idea up. On a side note, this is my primary beef with Hacker and Pierson's overrated book Off Center which merely furthers the state of denial our culture has fallen into.

As long as we accept systematic lying and as long as our political culture accepts that the laws are for the little people and may be violated by the Straussian elite whenever they deem it necessary, then all of our political discussion and rational analysis is merely epiphenomenal.

It's the lying, stupid!

Posted by Junius Brutus | January 31, 2008 7:39 AM

The converse is also true - remember Al Gore. If you get a reputation as an exaggerator, you might as well not open your mouth, because the press will exaggerate what you said, and then blame you for it.

Posted by Allan | January 31, 2008 7:41 AM

Apropos of McCain, the Washington Posts' resident fascist cocksucker, Robert Novak, questions McCains' conservative credentials in todays screed. Despite the Florida results, the Giuliani endorsement, and the pending endorsement from the Governor of California, the fact is that the right wingers, as evidenced by shithead Novak still don't like him so Romney may not be completely dead yet.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/30/AR2008013003212.html?hpid%3Dopinionsbox1&sub=AR

Posted by SLC | January 31, 2008 7:41 AM

The folks over at Swampland at least had some unkind things to say about St. John's performance last night. Michael Scherer and even Joe Klein had some choice words for McCain. I didn't know they could get away with saying anything bad about McCain in the MSM.

Posted by JDinBalt | January 31, 2008 7:45 AM

Is Mr. Straight Talk going to look our soldiers in the eye and tell them that 3 tours in Iraq are not enough, that it will be 8 or 9 before he achieves "victory"? Our armed forces will empty out overnight.

Posted by bob h | January 31, 2008 8:08 AM

Matt,

I guess this is the whole point of the kind of narratives that candidates can create (or get created for them). In the case of Gore, it was the exaggeration. In McCain's it is the truth-telling. And once the narrative has momentum, it is easier to fit new facts to that ongoing narrative than to challenge it.

Posted by Carlos | January 31, 2008 8:23 AM

It is for this reason I was praying for McCain to be beaten in the primary. If he's the nominee, my feeling is that he'll just tell lies about the Dem nominee and get away with it.

This is why I can't get excited about the miniscule differences between Billary And Senator Kumbaya--I can't see either of them beating McCain...

...I suppose I should be grateful that at least Rudy went down. We may have conscription and lotsa war, but at least we probably won't have secret torture facilities and prisons...

Posted by gustav | January 31, 2008 8:24 AM

Given that it was Mitty at the receiving end of the lying, I don't really care. Mitt is an accomplished liar himself. He is just a lot smoother. If fact in the debate there was the issue of Mitt advocating deporting illegals or something, and Mitty claimed he hadn't said it, only to have his quote read back to him verbatim. He hemmed and hawed for a bit, but finally came up with some glib bull**** about how he would deport them in phases. Apparently that was the humane thing to do. The more I see Romney, the more I dislike him. Like a snake willing to do/day anything to get elected. I hope he gets his a** kicked by McCain on super Tuesday.

Unlike other Democracts, I am not so worried about McCain in the general. The Mac is half senile, and I think either Hillary or Obama could easily take care of him. He just has say 100 year war with that maniac glee in his eyes, and every independent is going to run the hell from him. And did you notice how much the Republican establishment hates him? I am filled with glee at the frustration of Rush & Co. Schadenfreude, baby.

Posted by 2cynicalbyhalf | January 31, 2008 8:49 AM

Somehow I can't help noticing that although portraying Gore as an exaggerator and McCain as truthful is spoken about as a "herd mentality" or "momentum" issue or about coverage pattern; the fact that such coverage and punditry patterns once again specifically favor conservative politicians and conservative or hawkish approaches to issues should not be allowed to escape notice.

Who is the liberal politician with the avowed reputation as a hard-talkin' truth-teller the press admires?

These systematic press patterns always seem to favor right wing policies or more right wing approaches, yet are often discussed as though they happen in all directions, randomly, as one would expect if it were merely herd or momentum dynamics.

Posted by El Cid | January 31, 2008 8:51 AM

These systematic press patterns always seem to favor right wing policies or more right wing approaches, yet are often discussed as though they happen in all directions, randomly, as one would expect if it were merely herd or momentum dynamics.

May I just add a "Hell yes and Amen!"

This is why I have no great hope for Obama. Those who say Clinton is unelectable because the press hates her seem to be forgetting that this is exactly the sort of treatment Kerry and Gore both got. Why is it going to be different in Obama's case? Sure, they're all in love with him while he's fighting Hillary, but is that going to last?

Maybe the Obamafans are right and he really will be treated fairly. God, I hope so! But I don't think I've seen a convincing argument for why he'll be immune to the anti-Dem bias of the MSM.

Posted by gustav | January 31, 2008 9:09 AM

I don't see why Romney doesn't simply point out that McCain is arguing for sacrificing American lives just so factions in Iraq can continue prolonged squabbling/fights for power whereas he, Romney, is merely arguing that the President should let those factions know that our patience is limited.

Why doesn't Romney point out the obvious -- That soldiers sign up to defend the USA --and that their lives shouldn't be wasted by senile morons.

The underlying pitch, of course, is to the oil companies. McCain is blowing a dog whistle to Exxon , saying "Fund me and I'll protect your wells until the cows come home."

What Obama should do is break off from fighting Hillary and attack MCCAIN at this point -- for the above reasons. MCCAIN is locked in a sumo wrestling hold with Romney --and is REAL vulnerable to a hard tap on his kneecap with a hammer.

That would establish Obama as the defacto leader of the Democrats as well. And expose Hillary as a snarling fishwife who is more likely to sleep with the enemy than confront them.

Posted by Don Williams | January 31, 2008 9:22 AM

Of course, if said fishwife is going to sleep with the Navy sailor, she needs to get him all liquored up first:

http://select.nytimes.com/2006/10/18/opinion/18dowd.html?scp=1&sq=%22Hillary+Clinton%22++McCain+vodka&st=nyt

Posted by Don Williams | January 31, 2008 9:32 AM

McCain's blind spot is is his self-righteousness. He hates Mitt and sees Mitt as unprincipled, so he assumes the worst and sees anything as permissible when it comes to Mitt.

I think it's very similar to the Clintons maintaining a very high opinion of themselves while practicing shady politics. It's very often the self-loving "good" people who are doing the bad things in politics. Their self-righteousness justifies it to themselves.

All that said, I think McCain kind of has a point about Mitt's use of the phrase "time tables" back when the issue was on the table. Those were code words back then, and Mitt's nuanced response seems to have been an attempt to have it both ways for his upcoming campaigning. Mitt is expertly slippery whenever he can get away with it.

Posted by Ban Johnson | January 31, 2008 9:45 AM

The degree to which the supposedly impartial, objective mainstream press, with all of its vaunted standards, has felt free to take sides in the past few elections, is beyond astonishing.

They've been fellating McCain for eons. They nitpicked Gore to death, while giving Bush a free pass. They all but decided to pretend that Edwards wasn't running last year. And that's just off the top of the head.

Wouldn't be so absurd if they didn't turn around and criticize the blogosphere for its lack of journalistic standards.

Posted by low-tech cyclist | January 31, 2008 10:09 AM

Billary And Senator Kumbaya--I can't see either of them beating McCain......I suppose I should be grateful that at least Rudy went down. We may have conscription and lotsa war, but at least we probably won't have secret torture facilities and prisons...
Posted by gustav

First, don't be surprised if you see Conservatives not only refusing to fund McCain, but lining up to vote for - Obama in particular - but also Hillary over McCain because they just cannot abide the nastiness of the guy, and his backstabs, lies, and treachery. Count me as one. I'd rather vote for an honest liberal than a dishonest, stupid, backstabbing faux conservative.

There were liberals, some I knew, that hated Bush but voted for him because they were Vets and convinced John Kerry disgraced his uniform. By cavorting with Jane Fonda, meeting with enemy leaders in Paris while still holding a Navy commission, and lying about 1 purple heart definitely on signed testimony of superiors and medical people involved...a second PH, probably. As much as they hated Bush, Kerry's wartime treachery, that they said was real, not "swiftboater lies", was too much for them to stomach. It went past the political to the deep, personal core of those liberal Vets that Kerry was unacceptable.

********************
All that said, I think McCain kind of has a point about Mitt's use of the phrase "time tables" back when the issue was on the table. Those were code words back then, and Mitt's nuanced response seems to have been an attempt to have it both ways for his upcoming campaigning. Mitt is expertly slippery whenever he can get away with it.
Posted by Ban Johnson

Incorrect. Romney, and McCain knew this full well, was referring to timetables for Iraq leadership (and some Americans) for goals, milestones, and deliverables related to political, economic, and military goals related to the UN Mandate of Occupation and held to timetables 1st published in early 2005. Stuff like Kurd buy-in, electric generation going from 60% of pre-war to 80% at the end of 2006, markets in 70% of cities regularly open vs 35% in 2006.

McCain knew these were the timetables, he himself discussed their "amazing progress thanks to our heroes" every public appearance he did in 2005-2006 - they were not exclusive "code word" for withdrawal. McCain is lying his ass off since he knows what the timetables of goals and deliverables the US pushed the Iraqis to do did not include a timetable for phased withdrawal.

What Romney did with the Surge was quite admirable. He didn't come out and endorse it like some Senators with years of classified briefings Romney didn't have did. Romney asked for and got briefings in the fall from DOD and military strategists like Fred Kagan and decided with staff that the info showed the Surge was a doable thing - and announced his backing the day before Bush came out with his plan.

That McCain plays scoundrel and wraps himself in the flag to lie his ass off and smear fellow Republicans is an old act, known well by his other victims of treachery and backstabbing. That is why they hate him so much. Romney is just the latest one subjected to McCain's vile methodology.
Only his MSM fellators promulgate the myth that McCain is a person of "straight talk" and integrity, or give credence to the guy in the bottom 1% of his Academy class and passed over as unfit to be Admiral as having some unique genius to be Commander in Chief.

Posted by Chris Ford | January 31, 2008 10:51 AM

Mark Twain said something like "Once a man establishes a reputation as an early riser, he may sleep until noon."

Posted by q | January 31, 2008 11:40 AM

McCain is merely employing what he learned from his masters, Rove/Bush. If you repeat something often enough and with unflinching conviction, it will become accepted as possibly true or a debateable point. It helps if the lie has at least a sliver of whiteness or connection to reality -- in this case, Romney was talking about the need for "timetables," albeit not the sort of US troop reduction timetables that McCain's white lie imply.

Posted by bragan | January 31, 2008 11:42 AM

Re Chris Ford

Mr. Ford, defender of draft dodgers Bush and Cheney weighs in again with a smear against non-draft dodger Kerry (he stupidly enough volunteered). Of course, Cheney, by his own admission, was too busy going to college and Bush was too busy snorting the nose candy, smoking lefty luckies in between shots of bourbon. This is to go along with he continuing smear campaign against John McCain. About par for his course.

Posted by SLC | January 31, 2008 11:47 AM

I think what some Democrats unaffiliated with either Obama or Hillary's campiagn need to do is set up a "Americans Against McCain" 527, with the explicit purpose of pushing the meme "Double-Talkin' John McCain" deep inside the voters' psyches between now and November.

Posted by Ted Kilvington | January 31, 2008 12:10 PM

Give them time, Matt. A narrative that's more than eight years old won't die overnight. I, like many Dems, was initially despondent over facing McCain in the general. If the vote were held today, most of my family, whose members have slowly moved out of the GOP column thanks to W, would vote for him. But, this could be a good thing. McCain's summer implosion allowed him to skate under the radar and pop up to grab the nomination when everyone else stumbled. For someone who's been in the spotlight for ages, Americans know very little about him. There's this fuzzy feeling he's awesome. But like what happened with Rudy, I suspect that when people are exposed to him, the sheen of St. John will fade. He's a mean old man who is actually quite conservative, loves war and has issues with the truth. Conservatives hate him not just because he's a "maverick," but because he's a sanctimonious ass. The media will hold onto its lofty view of the man as long as possible, but if the Dems unload on him as he deserves, he will end up looking a lot more like Bob Dole than Ike.

Posted by NHCt | January 31, 2008 1:07 PM

"I use the phrase, "It's the lying, stupid!" to sum this idea up."

I prefer the phrase used by a top Libertarian Party member back in the 70's: "If lying helps, I say lie."

Difference between Republicans and Libertarians is that statement seriously offended a lot of Libertarians, both small-L and big-L.

Don Williams: From Dowd's column:

"And yet Hillary always struck me as the sort of buttoned-up and driven woman who would be really fun if you could get her out for a night of dulces de leche in Cuba, as Marlon Brando did Jean Simmons in 'Guys and Dolls.'"

Or as I've been saying, leaving out the code words, she's a woman who needs to get seriously laid - and never has been.

I volunteer - in the interests of selfless charity, of course. (My own desperation doesn't enter into it.)

Besides, maybe she'll "be generous", as the ads say.

Posted by Richard Steven Hack | February 1, 2008 1:04 AM