Cohen on McCain: He Can Do Know Wrong

Via Somerby and Lemieux, Richard Cohen has an war is peace moment:

And so it will be the job, the obligation, the solemn task of the next president to restore that trust. John McCain could do it. He's an honorable man who has fudged and ducked and swallowed the truth on occasion—about the acceptability of the Confederate flag, for instance—but always, I think, for understandable although not necessarily admirable reasons.

To be simplistic about this, you're looking here at a press that's hopelessly in the tank for John McCain. To try to be a bit more charitable, you're looking here at a press that's hopelessly invested in the doomed epistemology of character. We can't know what lurks in the hearts of pols, but we can make inferences based on their behavior. But all politicians' behavior is mixed. So we (and by "we" here I mean "Richard Cohen") read that behavior through our preexisting beliefs about their character. And since we "know" that McCain is honorable, he fudges and ducks and swallows etc. for "understandable" reasons, whereas other, lesser politicians are just soulless scumbags. Of course McCain's reasons are understandable -- he wants to win! -- but they're just the same reasons everyone else has. They pander, he's understandable. They lie, he fudges. It's all senseless.

Which is, I suppose, just another way of observing that we're looking at a press corps that's hopelessly in the tank for John McCain.

Comments

And the problem with Cohen, of course--as I am tirelessly at pains to point out, even though it's obvious, and I know it's not an analytical rebuttal but rather mere invective, the lowest form of wit, and yet surely of all people he deserves no more--is that he is a dork.

Posted by DrBB | April 23, 2008 9:19 AM

And folks in comments over on Ross's Comment about McCain's peak are yelping that McCain "can't catch a good word" from the media.

I think the truth is somewhere in between total tank-ism and total bad-mouting, but you're more right than they are -- McCain is treated with kid gloves as a straight-talking American hero, and all evidence to the contrary (while reported) is usually swept under the rug when the pundits start "analyzing" things.

Posted by Jim D | April 23, 2008 9:24 AM

Well, if it's McCain vs. Obama, this will certainly be the biggest "tank vs. tank" battle since Kursk!

Posted by RKU | April 23, 2008 9:24 AM

Richard Cohen is* an honourable man who eats babies and consorts with goats for understandable, though not necessarily admirable, reasons.

* allegedly.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | April 23, 2008 9:27 AM

But McCain says he was a Muslim,
And, sure, McCain is an honorable man.

typo note: if this were any other blog, I'd think there was some kind of pun in your title.

Posted by rm | April 23, 2008 9:30 AM

It's important that we do know wrong. For unless we do know wrong, how can we ever hope to know right?

Posted by James Gary | April 23, 2008 9:32 AM

The idea that so fatuous a fucking zero Richard Cohen, a soulless, deeply stupid man, a morally bankrupt "Israel is the victim", horny, over-the-hill piece of clueless Jewish baby boomer shit could in any way influence a dispossessed, economically ravaged America in the voting booth is #1. Saul Bellow's *Moronic Inferno in miniature and #2. something I just don't and won't accept. No one should.

Posted by Trevor | April 23, 2008 9:32 AM

And since we "know" that McCain is honorable, he fudges and ducks and swallows etc. for "understandable" reasons, whereas other, lesser politicians are just soulless scumbags.

What, do they have trust funds?

Posted by Chris D | April 23, 2008 9:33 AM

Matt, you sort of touch upon this, but I really hate the common error Cohen makes; if there are "understandable" reasons for McCain's lies, then presumably there are people who inexplicably lie. Whomever those people may be, they aren't politicians. So for anyone to excuse McCain's lies as understandable isn't really offering a defense at all.

Posted by Client #11 | April 23, 2008 9:39 AM

THIS IS GREAT NEWS FOR HILLARY AGAINST RACIST AMERICA HATEING ANTISEMETIC OSAMA... OOPS, I MEANT OBAMA (OR DID I?) BIG MAIN STREAM MEDIAS IN THE TANK FOR OBAMA BIN AMERICA-HATER JUST LIKE MCCAIN GO HILLARY YOU GO GIRL!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WE NEED A WOMAN WITH EXPERIANCE AND INTELIGANCE AND NOT SOME AMERICA-HATING LIBERAL ELITE MUSLIM!!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHY IS A MUSLIM RUNNING FOR THE WHITE HOUSE, THIS IS A CHRISTIAN COUNTRY, OBAMA SHOULD RUN FOR PRESIDENT OF ARABIA LOL

Posted by LesbiansForHillary | April 23, 2008 9:41 AM

Gees, Matt. Talk about in the tank. Cohen excuses Obama with the same logic, which you conveniently don't mention. It's Hillary who's the real Satan, per Cohen. Her lies count, but the lies of the boys don't.

Posted by Bobby | April 23, 2008 9:53 AM

An honorable man with piss poor judgment about the Iraq war, a lack of understanding that Gen. Petraeus isn't in command of forces in Afghanistan, who believes a "gas tax holiday" is a good idea, and who admits he doesn't know s*** about s*** when it comes to the economy is merely an honorable man who is not fit to be President.

Posted by LFC | April 23, 2008 9:56 AM

The corporate masters and news editors and publishers of America's truthy media seem breathlessly, eagerly panting to support a candidate who has more than a passing familiarity with corruption; frequently says things which aren't accurate, or are outright untrue; gives stump speeches as if he were in a full-body cast, and appears to have trouble remembering his Social Security number without minders and handlers.

Stupid Fluffers. But, is anyone surprised?

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | April 23, 2008 9:57 AM

He's an honorable man who has fudged and ducked and swallowed the truth on occasion—about the acceptability of the Confederate flag, for instance—but always, I think, for understandable although not necessarily admirable reasons.

Isn't someone who fudges and ducks and "swallows the truth" (which I suppose is a nicer euphemism for "lies") for not necessarily admirable reasons by definition not an honorable man?

I might as well write "he's an honest man who has cheated and stolen and lied —about just how much taxpayer money he's given away to his cronies, for instance—but always, I think, for understandable although not necessarily admirable reasons-he doesn't want to go to jail."

Posted by Stefan | April 23, 2008 9:57 AM

Right. After 25 years of charming Republican presidents, America is now surpassed by at least twenty other countries in everything except weapons and corporate profits. Of course we need more of that.

Posted by Gary Sugar | April 23, 2008 10:03 AM

Saint McCain has lied in an honorable manner for all our benefit?

WTF?

This is a "journalist"???

Posted by El Cid | April 23, 2008 10:05 AM

Please, please, please, someone tell me that the title is written that way on purpose.

Oh, and the idea that the media is in the tank for McCain is utterly ridiculous (and, need I point out again, scientifically proven wrong). Nobody in the media has a "thrill up his leg" for McCain the way they do for Obama.

Posted by Al | April 23, 2008 10:05 AM

Chris Matthews is dumb. On that, we can all agree, Al.

Also, the media is hopelessly in the tank for McCain. No one calls him out for his ignorance about Iraq, or tax policy, or... well, everything.

The "media is too nice to Obama" argument looked smarter a month ago, before the Rev. Wright/bitter-fest.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | April 23, 2008 10:10 AM

Trevor, why does Israel or Cohen's Judaism matter here?

Posted by Bart | April 23, 2008 10:13 AM

MY:

"He Can Do Know Wrong"

"Richard Cohen has an war is peace moment"

What's going on here? A little proofreading might help.

Posted by Quiddity | April 23, 2008 10:14 AM

Al, could you please direct me to the peer reviewed study of the press corps loins that proves that given members of the media have a "thrill up his [or her!] leg" for Obama?

Posted by Client #11 | April 23, 2008 10:14 AM

MY:

"He Can Do Know Wrong"

"Richard Cohen has an war is peace moment"

What's going on here? A little proofreading might help.

Posted by Quiddity | April 23, 2008 10:18 AM

I think it's fair to say that the press corps really loves McCain personally and loves Obama as a concept, competing affections that will make the oncoming race either fascinating or completely horrible.

The media doesn't mind when Obama lies either. Take a look at how everyone freaked out at ABC the first time someone asked him how he could raise the cap on Social Security taxes without breaking his pledge not to raise taxes on people earning less than $250K.

Hillary (and Romney's) lies are horrible sins; McCain's and Obama's are completely understandable. Bush's seem to be somewhere in between, interestingly.

Posted by right | April 23, 2008 10:23 AM

fudged and ducked

I pray for the moment someone reads this aloud on the radio. Carelessly.

Client #11: Sadly, Al is quoting Chris Matthews.

Posted by DonBoy | April 23, 2008 10:24 AM

I think what Cohen is saying is hysterical: that McCain does wicked things for nasty reasons. And Cohen doesn't care.

There's no argument there. No position beyond vanity.

You, too, Al.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | April 23, 2008 10:49 AM

The goat was lonely. I was feeling horny. So I fucked the goat. My behavior here may not be admirable but it is understandable. Lonely goat. Horny guy. Whaddya gonna do? You get it, right?

Posted by straight shooter (heh, heh) | April 23, 2008 11:00 AM

Also, the media is hopelessly in the tank for McCain. No one calls him out for his ignorance about Iraq, or tax policy, or... well, everything.

Like Stephanopoulos letting him slide on his tying of capital gains and 401(k)'s together, as rookie a mistake on taxes as it gets.

McCain is a confused man who has said many dumb things that aren't getting coverage. Bush was dumb too, and the press let him slide in 2000 for a pile of ridiculous statements and positions. Liberal media my ass.

Posted by LFC | April 23, 2008 11:17 AM

Epistemology of character is good. But one must also remember the narrowness of the characters that the governing class approves of. Except for the odd week in which the press corps is suddenly non-elitist and all about bowling, we can exclude all of the bottom 80 percent of the American income bracket, because none of those people exist for the elite press corps. Then we can also exclude outsiders who are radical - like Jeremiah Wright. On the other hand, outsiders who were once considered radical - the James Dobsen set - have, by hard work and patronage, become all right. Then we have to exclude people who are too liberal, because they are too liberal. For instance, the Washington Post is really worried that Colombia isn't getting a fair shake because its president is involved with paramilitary drug lords and union organizer killers. Those who would, say, frown on a trade pact with such people must be too liberal. Hence, you have the far left Pelosi. On the other hand, you have to be balanced. You have to exclude people who are too conservative too. Those, then, to the right of Michelle Malkin and to the left of Joe Lieberman are about the sweet spot.

This is part of the selecting out process of the 80s and 90s, when the new conservative establishment met resistance from the press - which was, nationally, at that time liberal - and gradually the press changed.

So, we now have a press that wants to know why Obama, for instance, ever met a former Weatherman, but has displayed absolutely no curiosity about what effect Bush's good and personal relationship with the Bin Laden family has had on his policies. In fact, as we come into the countdown and it looks like Bin Laden will not only outlast Bush, but will be moving to Afghanistan as Bush moves out of the white house, there is zero curiosity in the press about how such a thing - the product of our 4 trillion dollar war on terrorism - could happen. In fact, hands are thrown up in horror that such a question could even be asked, as if we all are confident that Bush did everything in his power to capture or kill the terrorist to whom he owes his reelection and whatever popularity he was able to briefly gin up for his moronic reign of terror.

That the Bush family also has personal relationships with several anti-Cuba terrorists is also something only those who are whacko would want to know about. Journalism that engages in selective character judgment like this gives us - the Bush culture. The press is intent on continuing it. They are, after all, only interested in terrorists if they are fantasists on the left.

Posted by roger | April 23, 2008 11:27 AM

Re Trevor

I must say that the ignorance of Mr. Trevor is breathtaking. Obviously, Mr. Trevor hasn't been reading Richard Cohens' columns over the years. If he had, he would known that Mr. Cohen was one of the most pro-Palestinian op-ed writers for years, constantly ragging the Government of Israel on its settlement policies and roadblock implementations. Back in the 1990s he wasn't much better then Norman Finkelstein.

Posted by SLC | April 23, 2008 11:28 AM

He's an honorable man who has fudged and ducked and swallowed the truth on occasion—about the acceptability of the Confederate flag, for instance—but always, I think, for understandable although not necessarily admirable reasons.

Ahh, cognitive dissonance laid bare. What a bunch of drivel.

Posted by Jake H. | April 23, 2008 11:31 AM

DonBoy, I know the quote whereof Al speals. I also know Al is a troll. Nonetheless, Matthews has said many creepier things about McCain (and Delay, et al) over the years than he has about Obama, so I do find it funny that Al claimed that "the idea that the media is in the tank for McCain is ... scientifically proven wrong)," as his first reaction to evidence Matt has of the press excusing McCain's lying--he's just pandering 'cause he has too, not like all those awful pols that pander for fun (and profit). No bias there.

Al is mostly humorless, but that was pretty funny--a well-done troll. Kudos, Al!

Posted by Client #11 | April 23, 2008 11:54 AM

Like I try to keep saying, there's little point parsing most of these guys, they're not journos, but rather a wealthy cohort. McCain won't introduce school prayer and won't do much to make abortion illegal, the other stuff (tax cuts, war, s.s. privatization) these guys are all on board for.

Posted by mike | April 23, 2008 12:06 PM

John McCain is a great man. Only a fool - or possibly a Frenchman - could conclude otherwise.

Posted by Richard Cohen | April 23, 2008 12:11 PM

Trevor,

Nice rant about a Jew, but can't you work in more bad gags and pathetic autobiographical revelations?

You're our assclown, baby! You have a reputation to uphold! Don't let us down!

Well, I'm sure, sweet industrious loser that you are, you'll be posting dozens upon dozens more times in the weeks ahead about whatever Jews have filled your endearing little mind with wrath -- but this time, don't forget to work in additional failed yuk-yuks and Tales From Da Life Of Trevor!

Don't forget: you're an assclown, Trevor! A jerkoff who can't stop talking about himself! A writer of lame-o cliche gags who piggybacks on a just-out-of-college, progressive, Jewish blogger's comment section to work out his sad frenzied obsession with adult Jews!

More affected prose, Trev'! More forced literary allusions! More awful one-liners! More venting against the Hebrews! And, yes, more personal revelations!

You're a shameless buffoon and, Jesus, we love you for it.

Wank on, assclown! Wank on!

Posted by Trevor Appreciation Society | April 23, 2008 12:12 PM

McCain won't introduce school prayer and won't do much to make abortion illegal

While technically true, this statement completely misses the point. Right now, those issues are controlled by the Supreme Court. Guess which person gets to nominate Supreme Court justices?

Posted by blah | April 23, 2008 12:21 PM

Which is, I suppose, just another way of observing that we're looking at a press corps that's hopelessly in the tank for John McCain.

************************************************

Since the press is obviously in the tank for Obama, this should be quite an election to watch.

Posted by Campesino | April 23, 2008 12:29 PM

McCain has mastered the art of mental jujitsu, not just with the press but with his most ardent supporters.

The most vocal McCain supporters I know support him for mutually contradictory reasons. Each of them honesty believes that when McCain says something they violently disagree with, he's just "pandering to the rubes". They're CONVINCED he's lying all the time, but in the socially acceptable way of "telling idiots what they need to hear".

The best part? They both know each other, and from their statements on McCain, they both must think the other is an idiot that McCain is pandering to. I've been dying to see them discuss it.

Posted by Morat20 | April 23, 2008 12:39 PM

This is the kind of honor Cohen should mean, but doesn't:

Here, under leave of Brutus and the rest--
For Brutus is an honourable man;
So are they all, all honourable men--
Come I to speak in Caesar's funeral.
He was my friend, faithful and just to me:
But Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
He hath brought many captives home to Rome
Whose ransoms did the general coffers fill:
Did this in Caesar seem ambitious?
When that the poor have cried, Caesar hath wept:
Ambition should be made of sterner stuff:
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And Brutus is an honourable man.
You all did see that on the Lupercal
I thrice presented him a kingly crown,
Which he did thrice refuse: was this ambition?
Yet Brutus says he was ambitious;
And, sure, he is an honourable man.

Posted by rm | April 23, 2008 12:46 PM

Of course character is important. The problem is that the judgement of the likes of Cohen is dreadful--they are just justifying their sentiments with vacuous reasons, just the same kind of thinking that gave W a pass in 2000.

(I think you and Jon Chait make excellent judges of character by the way; when are you next going to do a BH.)

Posted by Chris Dornan | April 23, 2008 1:10 PM

Here is an illustration of what a solid judge of character Richard Cohen is, from his November 2000 WaPo column "Gore Can't Heal the Hurt:"

Given the present bitterness, given the angry irresponsible charges being hurled by both camps, the nation will be in dire need of a conciliator, a likable guy who will make things better and not worse. That man is not Al Gore. That man is George W. Bush.

I think we can all agree that the above could only have been written by a fool (and not a Frenchman).....Now I ask you, why is a man this profoundly stupid, a man so utterly incapable of making character judgments, of seeing vapidity and evil when they're staring him straight in the face, why is this man being paid to give us his opinions? And why are we reading them?

Posted by Stefan | April 23, 2008 1:46 PM

al writes: "Oh, and the idea that the media is in the tank for McCain is utterly ridiculous (and, need I point out again, scientifically proven wrong). Nobody in the media has a "thrill up his leg" for McCain the way they do for Obama.

scientifically proven?? please cite the science??
i'm just curious.

the media that doesn't have a thrill up his leg, recently bought him donuts. [his favorite, with sprinkles.]

mccain hooks up with preachers who are anti-semitic and anti-catholic and the media coverage is silence.

mccain confuses sunni and shites on multiple occasions and the media thinks nothing of it.

when chris matthews isn't feeling things in his leg, here's the kind of thing he says about mccain: "Ladies and gentlemen, there's something real here, courage to endure repeated disappointment, unexpected failure, shattering defeat," he said on Hardball the night before the Iowa caucus. "That's what people respected in Britain's Winston Churchill, and it's so much who John McCain is this second and final run for the presidency. There's something genuine here, something selfless, even quietly grand in his campaign"

PAUL F. CAMPOS writes: "When it comes to McCain, many of the sophisticates at the top of the media pyramid are like a masochistic spouse who treats open infidelity as a twisted sort of faithfulness. They love McCain because when he lies to their face he doesn't even pretend to be doing otherwise. According to the pretzel logic of a certain kind of journalism, that counts as candor."

i could go on.....

Posted by dj spellchecka | April 23, 2008 3:32 PM

A social worker told me this story about TAS not long ago. Setting: the living room. I believe the young TAS was around 7:

Young TAS looks at his dad. Tas dad looks back at young TAS. Young TAS looks back at his dad.

Young TAS: "Daddy, what's a degenerate?"

TAS dad: "Shut up kid, and just keep on sucking."

When I heard the story - I wept. It's really tragic.

Any way, later his dad would dress him in a clown suit and bugger poor young TAS. I can only surmise that's the derivation of his epithet "assclown". Is it reductive? Sure? But, this was a wrenching trauma. There's no telling the degree to which it impaired his intellectual development.

The standard, psychiatric, diagnostic nomenclature is of course: "Projection". When TAS looks in the mirror...he relieves the horror of his youth. And, the word bubbles forth.

This is one unhappy turd. And, he's lashing out at the one person who truly wants to help. I'm tearing up right now.

Posted by Trevor | April 23, 2008 4:05 PM

Well, here's one good thing about the pathetic mainstream press coverage of this election - watching this warmongering imperialist zillionaire-by-marriage with chronic infidelity and anger management issues and a zero rating from the League of Conservation Voters get portrayed as this stand-up maverick everyman has motivated many folks (including me)to simply stop getting our news from the MSM. I used to read the Washington Post - now I give it a cursory once-over and then read Salon and the Atlantic. I used to watch a bit of TV news, maybe some CNN - now I watch Jon Stewart and CSpan. I'd rather rip out my car radio and drop an anvil on it than listen to the right-wing talk radio screed from Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, Savage, Cabin Boy Mark Levin, and the other dregs that D.C. radio offers.

So the MSM's puerile and inane coverage has led me to find better information sources elsewhere....which finds me purchasing better books (just received both "Heads in the Sand" and Glenn Greenwald's "Great American Hypocrites" in the mail) - AND I don't have to read Michael Gerson and David Broder's idiotic spin anymore! So at least something good is coming out of all this MSM nonsense...

Posted by edsbowlingshoe | April 23, 2008 4:08 PM

Charles Krauthammer had an inspired defense of John McCain against charges that his temper is an issue that should count against him. On the one hand, reports of his tendency to lose control of his anger are exaggerated, and audio or video proof of it is wanting anyway. Furthermore, other reports have it that McCain has settled down and gotten a grip on his temper, so there's nothing to worry about.
On the other hand, if McCain is indeed a loose canon, that's a virtue. This is because Iran and other bad guys will be hesitant to antagonize America because its president is could potentially fly off the handle at any moment for any reason (yes, this is a concsious resuscitation and defense of Nixon's madman theory).
So, you see, either McCain does not really have a temper, which is great, or he does have a temper, which is also great. Now all Krauthammer has to do is say that McCain both does and does not have a temper, which is double-plus great!
We may take this, I think, as a paradigm of the way the press treat McCain (and the way Krauthammer reasons).

Posted by Jack | April 23, 2008 4:27 PM

This is part of the selecting out process of the 80s and 90s...

I agree with you, roger -- but just for the sake of humor, I think the '80's and 90's' (when America's hereditary wealth class made certain decisions about our press) may have been the 1880's and 1890's...

At least, that's the era they're working steadily to bring back. They're succeeding at it, too.

Posted by Jemand von Niemand | April 23, 2008 6:25 PM

Re Trevor Appreciation Society

But Mr. Trevors' father is a federal judge appointed by Richard Nixon and he himself is a screen writer in tinsel town and once met Mel Gibson. How can you write so disparagingly about such a distinguished person (not)?

Posted by SLC | April 23, 2008 9:07 PM