Ah Straight Talk

One virtue of having a reputation as a straight-talker is that you can get away with constant lying. For example, in response to a question about why he twice voted against a commission to investigate the response to Hurricane Katrina, John McCain says he voted in favor of every investigation. In reality, just as the New Orleans local news reporter said, he twice voted against a commission to investigate the matter.

Now there's probably some crazy strained reading of McCain's remarks so that his claims are consistent with reality. And since everyone knows McCain's a straight-talker, the press will read it that way. And because that's been the press's response each of the dozens of times in the course of this campaign that McCain's told bald-faced lies, his reputation for straight-talk never vanishes. A lesser figure who was in the habit of constantly lying and flip-flopping would develop a reputation as a kind of madmen, so invested in self-love that he thinks he has no obligation to political principles or basic factual accuracy.

Comments

Wow, McCain sounds like he may be a uniter, not a divider. His harsh denunciation of Bush Jr's failures to respond to Katrina sound as though he might by a compassionate conservative. I am deeply impressed.

Posted by El Cid | June 4, 2008 6:56 PM

El Cid:
That's snark, right?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | June 4, 2008 7:07 PM

I guess this is what happens when you put the press attitude towards Gore into an invert-o-meter.

Posted by Nathan | June 4, 2008 7:15 PM

Either he lying or senile. Neither is good for being president - though Republicans don't seem to mind either or both in their candidates.

Posted by ET | June 4, 2008 7:21 PM

I don't think McCain is necessarily lying so much as bullshitting. Sometimes he's right about his own record, sometimes he's wrong, but it doesn't really matter. What matters is he's giving you the "straight talk" which means whatever rolls off his tongue at a given moment. It's the Harry Frankfurt definition of bullshit. You have to care about the truth to be a liar because a lie is in opposition to the true. To be a bullshitter you don't have to care about the truth at all, only that what you say serves you at any given moment.

Posted by joejoejoe | June 4, 2008 7:40 PM

I just think that McCain is almost 72 years old with the associated physiological/psychological issues that come along with the aging process. You lose your mental flexibility... not that it's not still there, but send in a curveball and you're not as able to roll with the change. I have several brilliant men in my life that are reaching that age and I've watched their thinking processes change over time. They're not senile, just a little slower, less flexible, and they take longer to incorportate new information.

This, at the least, should be a bellweather for McCain not being the president. He probably sincerely thinks he voted for all the investigations, or at least the ones he remembers. Harkening back to Hillary's ad, do you want someone in that state of mind picking up the phone and misunderstanding what they're hearing, or just who is on what side, or that they've already made a different decision? Aside from that, his policies suck, his record is morally repugnant, he's been the legislative key in lobbyists' pocket, and he can't hold his temper.

But he's such a nice old maveric and wouldn't it be nice to watch one last ride into the sunset?

Posted by Jaycal | June 4, 2008 7:43 PM

For once Matt is prescient. The McSame response: "As Sen. McCain said, he wasn't familiar with the specific votes the questioner was asking about. Instead he was speaking to his strong support for the Homeland Security Committee's comprehensive, bipartisan investigation of Hurricane Katrina, which was already fully underway when these other proposals were suggested."

As already noted, he is either lying or simply ignorant. Probably a combination, with the "charitable" interpretation leaning towards ignorance since (as no one ever suggested bombing the levees or NOLA) he has almost no interest in this issue. What is unsurprising by now, but maddingly frustrating, is that the MSM will almost certainly let him skate for the umpteenth time. Imagine their righteous indignation had ANY Democrat made such a baldfaced lie on a substantive matter (given their happy talent to create Democratic scandals by twisting innocuous comments concerning nonsubstantiove matters).

Posted by Marlowe | June 4, 2008 7:44 PM

I just think that McCain is almost 72 years old with the associated physiological/psychological issues that come along with the aging process. You lose your mental flexibility... not that it's not still there, but send in a curveball and you're not as able to roll with the change. I have several brilliant men in my life that are reaching that age and I've watched their thinking processes change over time. They're not senile, just a little slower, less flexible, and they take longer to incorportate new information.

This, at the least, should be a bellweather for McCain not being the president. He probably sincerely thinks he voted for all the investigations, or at least the ones he remembers. Harkening back to Hillary's ad, do you want someone in that state of mind picking up the phone and misunderstanding what they're hearing, or just who is on what side, or that they've already made a different decision? Aside from that, his policies suck, his record is morally repugnant, he's been the legislative key in lobbyists' pocket, and he can't hold his temper.

But he's such a nice old maveric and wouldn't it be nice to watch one last ride into the sunset?

Posted by Jaycal | June 4, 2008 7:45 PM

Underestimating John McCain is not the way to win this election for Obama.

Posted by Tim K | June 4, 2008 7:51 PM

Underestimating John McCain is not the way to win this election for Obama.

No, I suppose not. But pointing out his inconsistencies would seem to be a good start.

According to some thinly sourced--but widespread--reports, Clinton is planning to drop out and endorse on Friday. That should help too.

Posted by southpaw | June 4, 2008 8:02 PM

This allegation smacks of bullshit. What facts are being omitted here?

Posted by Elliot Reed | June 4, 2008 8:03 PM

This allegation smacks of bullshit. What facts are being omitted here?

The facts are there.

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 1660 to H.R. 2862

Statement of Purpose: To establish a congressional commission to examine the Federal, State, and local response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina in the Gulf Region of the United States especially in the States of Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and other areas impacted in the aftermath and make immediate corrective measures to improve such responses in the future.

[ . . .]

McCain (R-AZ), Nay

[ . . .]

And then yesterday:

I’ve supported every investigation and ways of finding out what caused the tragedy. I’ve been here to New Orleans. I’ve met with people on the ground. I’ve met with the governor. I’m not familiar with exactly what you said, but I’ve been as active as anybody in efforts to restore the city.

So, you know, it's true. I think they forgot to call him a maverick though. Shameful, really.

Posted by southpaw | June 4, 2008 8:16 PM

Matt,

I'm a frequent reader and infrequent poster. I just want to make one request: before we turn our full attention to the general election and put the bad blood of the primary season behind us, would you mind doing one final post where you call "Petey" out. Those are my favorite. Thanks.

Posted by sean | June 4, 2008 8:33 PM

There you libruls go, again, fixating on verb tenses. What the senator clearly meant was that he will vote for every Katrina investigation . . . as soon as our presence in Iraq is down to pre-surge levels.

Posted by urbino | June 4, 2008 8:39 PM

One virtue of having a reputation as a straight-talker is that you can get away with constant lying.

Priceless!

You will be able to use that sentence continuously through this campaign.

Posted by Julia | June 4, 2008 8:45 PM

And because that's been the press's response each of the dozens of times in the course of this campaign that McCain's told bald-faced lies, his reputation for straight-talk never vanishes.

It's officially easier to change the government than to change The Narrative.

Never underestimate the power of myth, the power of narrative.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 4, 2008 8:51 PM

And because that's been the press's response each of the dozens of times in the course of this campaign that McCain's told bald-faced lies, his reputation for straight-talk never vanishes.

It's officially easier to change the government than to change The Narrative.

Never underestimate the power of myth, the power of narrative.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 4, 2008 8:55 PM

A lesser figure who was in the habit of constantly lying and flip-flopping would develop a reputation as a kind of madmen, so invested in self-love that he thinks he has no obligation to political principles or basic factual accuracy.

Thank you for that, Matt. Brought a smile to my face, it did.

Posted by yave begnet | June 4, 2008 9:03 PM

McCain seems angry lately because he feels crimped compared to the days on the old bus when McCain could tell whoppers and not be held to account.

Posted by Comment | June 4, 2008 9:18 PM

Sorry about the multi-post. I got a 500 error every time, and no indication the post was not rejected....

Put some more gerbils on the wheel at the Atlantic, or don't let them write your code, or both.

Posted by Davis X. Machina | June 4, 2008 9:24 PM

As with Reagan (and as a previous commenter noted), a fair-minded person can't honestly say whether McCain is dishonest or merely doesn't remember. But it doesn't matter: either way, you can't take anything he says to the bank.

Posted by kth | June 4, 2008 9:33 PM

All right, if he didn't vote for it, he didn't vote for it, and he ought not misstate his actual position.

However, voting against one of these bipartisan kangaroo commissions strikes me as being eminently sensible. The Democrats on the commission will blame Bush, and the Republicans will blame the Democrats who were running the state and local government. And the chances that they will propose anything actually useful, as opposed to just another agency or layer of bureaucracy, are pretty low.

It would be a waste of time and money, and McCain should have just said so.

Posted by Cheerful Iconoclast | June 4, 2008 9:37 PM

However, voting against one of these bipartisan kangaroo commissions strikes me as being eminently sensible. . . . It would be a waste of time and money, and McCain should have just said so.

Possibly, but as of yesterday, McCain said he was for not just one but every single one of these bipartisan kangaroo commissions, so you might want to ask him to account for that.

I'm actually on the other side w/r/t the value of these investigations. You're certainly correct that their conclusions are usually deeply compromised by partiality. Nevertheless, highly visible investigations are quite effective--in my experience--in bringing forward documentary evidence that the public (and posterity) might not otherwise see. For example, we would have a much less clear picture of how the government functioned before and during the 9/11 attacks had there not been a 9/11 Commission . . . same with Watergate, the Challenger disaster, JFK, Tailhook, Iran-Contra, etc. The historical record would be impoverished without those investigations.

So while they don't necessarily build consensus, I think these commissions go a long way toward improving transparency.

Posted by southpaw | June 4, 2008 10:04 PM

Urbino Wins!

I was also going to point out to Matt and everyone else how much they are overreacting.

It's all just verb tenses. Obviously, he meant to say "will support" and everyone here is being unfair just because he mispoke the tense.

For Shame!

Posted by tricstmr | June 4, 2008 11:26 PM

John McCain: A Bridge to the 20th Century

Posted by SqueakyRat | June 4, 2008 11:55 PM

The funny thing is, he's technically correct (in a Bill Clinton sort of way) to say he supported every investigation. To follow Matt's link to TPM:

"McCain voted against establishing a commission to investigate the levee failures, in a September 2005 party-line vote in which all Republicans voted against the Democratic proposal. He then repeated that party-line GOP vote against a similar Dem proposal in February 2006."

In 2005 and 2006, the GOP still controlled Congress so party-line GOP votes killed the proposals. Surely there have been federal investigations of New Orleans (whether run by Congressional committee, Army Corps of Engineers or FEMA). In any event, money was appropriated by Congress for these probe and if McCain voted for the Appropriation bills that funded all of the actual investigations--- the he can correctly say he voted for every investigation.

To analogize, if a senator has voted for every Supreme Court nominee except Robert Bork (the last nominee rejected on a recorded vote IIRC), the senator would be technically correct in saying he's voted for every Supreme Court Justice-- Bork was never a Justice. Likewise, since the GOP Congress killed the Katrina Commission proposal, there was no commission investigation.

Posted by beowulf | June 5, 2008 12:00 AM

McCain could claim he invented the internet and the media whores would go on endlessly about what a mavericky straight-talkin' hacker he is.

Posted by The Fool | June 5, 2008 12:27 AM

Beowulf: you made my head hurt.

Davis and other double posers: the trick to posting here is to hit post, then open *another window* so you can see if your post made it. Usually the answer will be yes, despite the errors and the long wait while the gerbils keep spinning in the background.

Now that I've said that, I'll probably triple-post this baby.

Posted by mwg | June 5, 2008 7:32 AM

Xposted at Sadly No:

Pssss! Don't look now, but Atlas' Juggs dreamboat John Bolton The Raving says -- OMG you won't believe he thinks this -- Obama is dangerously naive.

He even uses a classic phrase of wingnut Green Lantern tough guy rants on foreign policy which simultaneously may thrill the crotch-based urges of so many neo-Khan pundit fans: "the hard men".

Obama the naive

His views on world affairs ignore history and imperil the U.S. and our allies.

By John R. Bolton | June 5, 2008 | Los Angeles Times

Barack Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea "without preconditions" is a naive and dangerous approach to dealing with the hard men who run pariah states. It will be an important and legitimate issue for policy debate during the remainder of the presidential campaign.

But to show his dedication to true right wing freakitude, does Bolton restrain himself to denouncing Kennedy's supposed foolishness before Kruschev or how Saint Ronnie barely saved us from Soviet indirect attack in El Salvador or Nicaragua or Angola or Mozambique?

Sadly, No! Bolton goes further -- reminding us of the Italian threat we narrowly faced down.

Had Italy, for example, gone communist during the 1950s or 1960s, it would have been an inconvenient defeat for the United States but a catastrophe for the people of Italy.

Keep in mind that what he's referring to is the first giant covert action by the post-WWII U.S. -- the subversion of Italian elections so that the Western, democratic Socialists couldn't win. Mind you, quite a few European governments have been socialist since then, and although it may have made John Bolton cry, it did not actually prove a catastrophe for them or us.

Captain Kangaragnarok also manages to go after -- wait for it -- San Francisco, America-hating hippie leftists AND Walter Mondale!!!!

It is an article of faith for Obama, and many others on the left in the U.S. and abroad, that it is the United States that is mostly responsible for the world's ills. In 1984, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations Jeane Kirkpatrick labeled people with these views the "San Francisco Democrats," after the city where Walter Mondale was nominated for president.

If only Obama had had more time to chase down female subordinates screaming at them and banging on their doors and remarking publicly how the UN could lose several floors and be fine.

And if only President Obama can screw up enough courage to nominate as UN Ambassador someone half as entertainingly mad as John Bolton. Did I say UN Ambassador? Oh, I meant court jester.

Posted by El Cid | June 5, 2008 7:45 AM

...so invested in self-love that he thinks he has no obligation to political principles or basic factual accuracy.

How about: "so invested in self-love that he thinks political principles and basic facts will chase after him currying favor."

Posted by hoipolloi | June 5, 2008 9:20 AM

It would be a waste of time and money, and McCain should have just said so.

But instead, he just lied about it. How's that strike you?

Posted by Brautigan | June 5, 2008 11:13 AM

MY, your last sentence obviously refers to Mittens. I've read frequently that he's now the choice of wingers who want a "true conservative" on the ticket. I'm sure we can look forward to corporate media's amnesia about McBush spreading to include--oh, heck, probably every conflicted Republican running this fall. They ALL have never taken any position other than the ones they now hold. If you don't think so, look it up yourself--our elite opinionaters have neither the time nor the expertise, as Joe Klein has emphasized.

Posted by Radio Hussein Head | June 5, 2008 11:36 AM

my two cents: McCain really doesn't care about domestic issues. I think that explains why he can't correctly cite his own voting history.

Plus, since he knows the media [ie: "his base] won't call him on it, he's willing to lie about new orleans to a new orleans reporter! chutzpah, baby!

Posted by dj spellchecka | June 5, 2008 12:02 PM