It's very strange that John McCain can baldly lie to the press about a nationally televised speech he delivered last week and not get called on it by reporters. This wasn't some obscure address -- I watched it live, as did political junkies all across the land since McCain scheduled it so as to come amidst coverage of the SD and MT primaries.
« Who Wants to Die for Sukhumi | Main | The Nature of the Threat »
Straight Talk
09 Jun 2008 11:37 am
Comments (23)
Who would you rather trust? Your fancy-pants elitist so-called 'recording machines' or Great American Patriot Maverick John McCain? The choice is yor'n.
What, you expect them to call McCain on his lie and miss out on the next free BBQ?
I cannot think why you would consider this strange. It seems like pretty normal behavior for the press when it comes to John McCain.
The really amazing thing here is that the press is unable/unwilling to call him on it even from self-interest. McCain (rightly) says the media didn't give Hillary her due. Then, when asked about it, says he didn't say it. If he can keep getting away with this, they will keep getting insulted. So not only will they not do a better job just to do a better job, but they won't do a better job when the crap is aimed directly at them.
If not for that LA Times op-ed, I'd be astounded. Alas.
Look, I think we all know that facts have a well known liberal bias so confronting McCrazy with them is just another partisan tactic from you effete liberal bloggers.
Look, I think we all know that facts have a well known liberal bias so confronting McCrazy with them is just another partisan tactic from you effete liberal bloggers.
You underestimate the magical goodness of St. John's dry-rub.
The reporters are practicing exoneration and redemption; something they learned from Old Yellow Tooth. (See earlier post.)
I don't think he lied so much as didn't pay attention to what he was reading on the teleprompter. You think McCain wrote those remarks about Hillary? I seriously doubt it.
He gave about as wooden a performance as possible, in no small part because he was basically just reading the screen. In that context, it's not surprising he doesn't remember what he said.
Nonetheless, the press needs to push him on it, if only to see how he handles it. Maybe he fesses up. We'll see.
This is hardly the first time that McCain's said something that is flatly contradicted by the record. Remember his press conference about the allegations that he got too close to the female lobbyist? When asked, he said no, he hadn't talked with anyone at the NY Times -- when of course, the NYT article said that he had.
I can't figure out if McCain has just gotten away with saying whatever he wants for so long that it's become a habit or if perhaps he's losing his short term memory: either he's a happy and compulsive liar or the Alzeimer's is setting in.
This is just another example of why I consider your optimism (and that of bloggers I actually respect, like Digby) about Obama's easy victory to be wildly misplaced. MSM coverage of McCain is not unlike Pravda's coverage of the Politburo. This is not going to change and it is all that the vast majoirty of voters--who don't even read the MSM thoroughly, let alone blogs--will see.
He's making a good case for entrusting his assets to a court appointed conservator.
I am not defending McCain, but he has an out
The media often overlooked how compassionately she spoke to the concerns and dreams of millions of Americans, and she deserves a lot more appreciation than she sometimes received....McCain
media hadn’t recognized or had overlooked some of the attributes that Hillary Clinton had brought to the race. And I wondered—...Bailey & Meacham
McCain did not use the word "attribute". I am never able to understand why experienced professional reporters can't get a fucking quote right. I have seen on TV a slight change in wording in realtime, and the reporter not realize that two different words usually have different meanibgs.
And that is why we usually cut & paste on the web, because we are not allowed to paraphrase each other, put the paraphrase in quote marks and attribute it, and then use the paraphrase against the original poster.
Exact quotation isn't just important, it is absolutely essential, and best so-called reporters in the MSM can't do it if their life depended on it.
Yeah, there's not really a contradiction there - what he says in the first quote is that she didn't get enough credit for some things; he only denies claiming that she didn't get credit *at all* for some things.
My grandfather can't remember where his pants are. Let's cut the man some slack when he "can't remember where his pants are" (or what he said mere days ago.)
What's that you say? He's actually vying for the presidency? Oh - well, I didn't mean that we should let a Presidential Candidate (who can't remember where his pants are) off of the hook....
McCain gets a pass because he's old. Of course - he shouldn't be a viable candidate precisely because he's too old. Not too old to be in Congress. Not to old to work. Just too old to be the most powerful person in the free world. What the heck is going to happen when we have an eighty year old president? He'll probably develop a sudden fondness for "Murder, She Wrote" episodes and leave his 2nd wife for Bea Arthur. Let's just hope he chooses a good VP candidate...
Now McCain further down does say things that are arguably untrue, but the force of the argument would be much more powerful if the reporters had brains or integrity enough to throw McCain's real words back at him.
And I know as a commenter if someone, especially an adversary, throws a paraphrase at me is first to say:"That isn't what I said." Advantage Bob.
If reporters were capable of really listening, and asking smart questions based on the exact words a politician said, we might not be in Iraq today.
McCain did not use the word "attribute".
Bailey and Mecham didn't say he did -- they weren't ascribing an exact quote to McCain.
he only denies claiming that she didn't get credit *at all* for some things.
No, he specifically denies delivering the lines about press coverage of Clinton that were in the prepared remarks, and that he did deliver.
That was in prepared remarks, and I did not [say it]—I’m not in the business of commenting on the press and their coverage or not coverage
McCain's just uttering falsehoods here.
Bailey and Mecham didn't say he did -- they weren't ascribing an exact quote to McCain. ...Weiner
Huh. My bad, for an incomplete quote. From John Cole incidentally
One of the things that you mentioned in your speech in New Orleans was that you felt that the media hadn’t recognized or had overlooked some of the attributes that Hillary Clinton had brought to the race. And I wondered—...Bailey & Meacham
"Mentioned?" whatever.
Honestly, ny guide for this is "Would it stand in a court of law?" Legal rules for evidence aren't that onerous. If you think McCain's denial could get a conviction for perjury, if all had been spoken under oath and read back from a transcript, then he lied.
In any case, I can recreate Bailey & Meacham's question using McCain's exact words without any particular difficulty, and I don't understand why they had to deviate.
And the press does this kind of thing every day, with I think malicious intent. It is one of the best things about the internet that we cut-and-paste in argument, and link back to context.
Sounds like someone's going to have to explain to him that when he actually reads prepared remarks out loud in front of a camera...the words that come out of his mouth become his words.
Let's see now.
We're going on eight years that Bush and Cheney have said any crap they've wanted to say - and aside from Don Rumsfeld, who apparently was considered low enough down on the totem pole that he could be successfully sandbagged by news organizations on at least two occasions - absolutely nobody in the MSM have questioned anything they've said.
And you think McCain is going to be called on anything? The heir presumptive to the Bush presidency? (I mean, really, you think the media believes Obama is going to be President?)
Please.
The media is OWNED by the people supporting the Republicans. Not to mention that it is considered "disrespectful" and a threat to the Establishment of which the media is a major part to point out that the leaders of your country are fucking, corrupt, lying criminals.
Who outside of the blogs called Hillary a fucking liar for her pathetic Tuzla story? They may have called her on it somewhat, but they submissively accepted the "I misspoke" bullshit.
Hmm. Reading the link, it sound to me like McCain had intended to scrub that line from his speech, but didn't, spoke it, and now thinks that he didn't.
I wonder how much of his large number of lies are actually more innocent—but just as alarming—errors of memory. I also think that he really is very pragmatic and that this, combined with his disinterest in so many issues, means that he changes his positions so often that he just can't keep up even with what he has believed in the past!
Comments closed June 23, 2008.
| 
Heads in the Sand
McCain says whatever he says he said. And don't you forget it. What he says he said. Not what he said. That you can forget.
Posted by steve duncan | June 9, 2008 11:42 AM