Pants on Fire V

Business Week: "This ad asserts a McCain campaign talking-point that Obama wouldn’t make time for wounded troops unless cameras were allowed to follow him, but did make time to work out at a gym. This, of course, is a lie. It’s a blatant lie." But also the following scoop:

What the McCain campaign doesn’t want people to know, according to one GOP strategist I spoke with over the weekend, is that they had an ad script ready to go if Obama had visited the wounded troops saying that Obama was...wait for it...using wounded troops as campaign props. So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that’s political hardball. But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents—a lie.

Straight talk!

Comments

McCain is a double talking phony.
Integrity means you at least try to say what you mean, mean what you say, and act accordingly.
McCain was a hero in Viet Nam.
Today he's a fraud.

Posted by Jeff | July 31, 2008 12:31 PM

McCain is ultra-concerned with "honor" whenever there's any chance for someone else to be the bad guy and him to be the white knight. (Fellow Republicans have learned over the years that it doesn't much matter to him who that someone else is.)

Otherwise, he couldn't care less about honor. It's all about self-esteem and reputation with him. Don't ever expect much in the way of self-criticism (unless he senses his reputation on the line), as he's not a reflective man.

Posted by Ban Johnson | July 31, 2008 12:40 PM

So, now that you've cited to about 97 mainstream sources bashing McCain, are you going to quit whining about what great press he gets?

Posted by ostap | July 31, 2008 12:40 PM

So, no matter which way Obama turned, McCain had an Obama bashing ad ready to launch. I guess that’s political hardball. But another word for it is the one word that most politicians are loathe to use about their opponents—a lie.

The real ad may have been a lie, but characterizing the proposed attack wouldn't be. It would be disingenuous, of course, but the base facts would actually be correct. The common word for this damned-if-you-don't approach is spin.

Posted by Brad L | July 31, 2008 12:41 PM

Yeah, that was exactly what I was waiting for ahead of the weekend, so I'm not surprised. Meanwhile, I see Rick Davis is having a case of the vapours over Obama "playing the race card" (and "dealing from the bottom of the deck" too!!) Someone pass poor Rick some smelling salts...

Posted by Tom F | July 31, 2008 12:43 PM

What does McCain stand for? Believe in? Why should I vote for HIM? I'm confused. This guy puts me to sleep and misspeaks every other sentence.

At a time when we need leadership and wisdom in the White House more than ever John McCain is the best the Republicans have to offer? Are you kidding me? Tell me our country can produce better leaders than this? John McCain is borderline incompetent and has no business being President. To suggest otherwise is a funny joke.

Obama certainly isn't perfect, but he is going to win this thing in a landslide. And that's unfortunate because our country really could use some healthy debate, not he said she said nanny nanny boo boo politics that comes from desperation campaigns that have no chance in hell in winning.

John McCain

Posted by Oh Lordy | July 31, 2008 12:47 PM

Wow. I think I'm going to need to subscribe to Business Week.

Posted by Jon | July 31, 2008 12:55 PM

"So, now that you've cited to about 97 mainstream sources bashing McCain, are you going to quit whining about what great press he gets?"

Ummm, this is not bashing, this is reporting the facts of a story.

This is bashing:

Candidate A says he is sticking to his policy but 'refining' the details.

Candidate B attacks the policy as 'naive', 'arrogant', and 'wrong-headed' but suddenly reverses position and all but endorses the same policy.

The press chooses to label Candidate A a 'flip-flopper' who changes position for political gain.

If the press 'bashing' a candidate unfairly is still a problem for you, I have about 20 more examples I would be happy to provide.

You give me your list of which issue have been mis-characterized and I will give you mine and let's see where we are at!

Posted by sven | July 31, 2008 12:56 PM

ostap: First, if you hadn't noticed, those are blogs affiliated with mainstream sources. Second, things might be turning a bit on McCain, but it took a long damn time--and many, many obvious errors, lapses, snarls, ridiculous commercials, and lies before anything happened, so count me skeptical that this is more than a tiny blip.

Posted by David | July 31, 2008 12:59 PM

Wow. I think I'm going to need to subscribe to Business Week.

Posted by Jon | July 31, 2008 1:00 PM

John McCain is borderline incompetent and has no business being President.

Remove "borderline" and I'm with you.

Posted by LFC | July 31, 2008 1:00 PM

"Don't ever expect much in the way of self-criticism (unless he senses his reputation on the line), as he's not a reflective man."

Ah crap! Not another one. Please, please, please God, do not let the American public be that stupid...again...

Posted by Me | July 31, 2008 1:02 PM

Not surprise about the dual ads. That's how the McCain campaign works now. They have become a parody of exactly what old JMac used to rail against.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Posted by matt | July 31, 2008 1:06 PM

John McCain is borderline incompetent and has no business being President.

Remove "borderline" and I'm with you.

Posted by LFC | July 31, 2008 1:08 PM

ostap writes:

"So, now that you've cited to about 97 mainstream sources bashing McCain, are you going to quit whining about what great press he gets?"

Translated from "Republican" to American, ostap is saying:

So, now that you've cited about 97 mainstream sources telling the truth about McCain, are you going to quit pointing out the other sources when they're wrong or deceptive?

Posted by Jeff | July 31, 2008 1:09 PM

Wow. I think I'm going to need to subscribe to Business Week.

That's the big news here. When Business Week is publishing these kinds of articles, it means the business community is starting to line up behind the Democratic nominee.

Those cats aren't stupid. It's not change they believe in...it's the prospect of Obama actually winding up in the White House. Very bad news for McCain if he loses that bloc.

Posted by scythia | July 31, 2008 1:14 PM

Skip further down to where the article nails "right-wing nut-muffin Sean Hannity."

"This is what some people are calling the Hannity strategy. Right wing nut-muffin Sean Hannity employs a slick strategy of repeating canards very quickly over and over, day in and day out, which aren’t challenged by his TV co-host Alan Colmes or by any of his radio listeners. By relentlessly repeating falsehoods day after day, the theory goes, it becomes embedded in the media."

Posted by Ballard Burgher | July 31, 2008 1:15 PM

So, now that you've cited to about 97 mainstream sources bashing McCain, are you going to quit whining about what great press he gets?

No, we'll start crowing about how McCain got all the breaks from the press until he screwed the pooch.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 31, 2008 1:30 PM

Right wing nut-muffin Sean Hannity employs a slick strategy of repeating canards very quickly over and over, day in and day out, which aren’t challenged by his TV co-host Alan Colmes or by any of his radio listeners.

He left out how Hannity pushes talking points 24 hours or more after they've been debunked, but exploits the satellite delay to keep from being fisked.
.

Posted by Grand Moff Texan | July 31, 2008 1:32 PM

Business Week has always skewed more liberal than the Republican party, in part because it's a business magazine, and its readership can judge from their bottom line just how worthwhile their reporting is. Republicans can afford to be completely disconnected from reality without suffering any consequences, so of course they will tend to be much more ideologically right-wing and have a greater tolerance for and promotion of falsehoods.

Posted by Tyro | July 31, 2008 1:37 PM

In Contrast, Obama's repsosnse to the Ludacris song was to condemn it, if it were a Pro McCain country song it would be an ad by now:-)

Posted by eric k | July 31, 2008 1:41 PM

That's the big news here. When Business Week is publishing these kinds of articles, it means the business community is starting to line up behind the Democratic nominee

Those cats aren't stupid. It's not change they believe in...it's the prospect of Obama actually winding up in the White House. Very bad news for McCain if he loses that bloc.

Shows how ignorant you are, Scythia. Business Week has always been a good source for news, especially economic analysis. Don't act like you know everything when you obviously don't.

And I don't think the business community is lining up behind Obama. They hedge their bets and send money to both candidates.

What's news is that the younger generation of business execs and players - from especially tech firms - are supporting Obama. There's a generational shift here. The question is how much Obama will disappoint them, and in what ways, if elected.

Posted by Peter K. | July 31, 2008 1:47 PM

as a thought experiment, which someone in the know could potentially drag up some facts -- how many visits did Obama make to visit wounded troops before he started his campaign in earnest? It wouldn't be definitive but if the number of times was, say, zero before but 10 afterwards, would politics be a plausible explanation?

Same could be done with McCain. Again, not a definitive test but if your standard of "supporting the troops" is visiting the ones in pain, it would certainly be indicative.

Same metrics for non-wounded troops, sick patients in hospitals, abused women, etc. At least we would come up with something resembling a compassion index.

Posted by mike c | July 31, 2008 1:48 PM

Business Week has always been a good source for news, especially economic analysis.

Mea culpa.

Don't act like you know everything when you obviously don't.

?

What's news is that the younger generation of business execs and players - from especially tech firms - are supporting Obama. There's a generational shift here. The question is how much Obama will disappoint them, and in what ways, if elected.

I am guessing, based on the last...say, 70 years of American history, that he will disappoint them far less than us. But them's the breaks.

Posted by scythia | July 31, 2008 1:51 PM

I'm thinking McCain can't wait for the Olympics to start. This is getting brutal.

Posted by DTM | July 31, 2008 1:53 PM

That's nice. I don't know much about the political leanings of BusinessWeek, but its name suggests that McCain may have to navigate through some opposition even from those who should be his natural and constituency divin.

That must be good for the McCain campaign.

Posted by gregor | July 31, 2008 1:53 PM

mike c, putting aside whether or not visiting the troops is a valid metric, what you're asking for is actual reporting.

surely you understand that no one does actual reporting anymore....

Posted by howard | July 31, 2008 1:54 PM

McCain is ultra-concerned with "honor" whenever there's any chance for someone else to be the bad guy and him to be the white knight. (Fellow Republicans have learned over the years that it doesn't much matter to him who that someone else is.) - Ban Johnson

Substitute "Formerly fellow Democrats" for "Fellow Republicans" and this sounds exactly like Joe Lieberman. I guess Holy Joe and St. John really are soul-mates. What will Hadassah and Cindy say?

*

Cue GOoPers complaining about the liberal bias of Business Week in 3 ... 2 ... 1 ...

Anyway, the media does occassionally seem like they are turning around on McCain ... but for all the stuff MY, et al., have pointed out, there is still a lot of fluffing going on. The only reason why Obama's side even gets out is that Obama himself is somewhat of a "cool kid" so the media types sometimes do show some love.

Imagine how things would be stacking up if someone whom the media truly hated were the Dem's presumptive nominee.

Posted by DAS | July 31, 2008 1:59 PM

Business Week has always been a good source for news, especially economic analysis.

Mea culpa.

Yeah, it's a bit counterintuitive. Maybe because they're journalists, they're a little more liberal and rational? I don't know. They still have some columnists who reach Robert Samuleson levels of badness and lamess. Social Security is in constant crisis, etc.

Posted by Peter K. | July 31, 2008 2:12 PM

"John McCain is borderline incompetent and has no business being President."

Not true. He's going to win the war in Iraq by comparing the enemy to Britney Spears.

Posted by cha cha cha | July 31, 2008 2:28 PM

I am shocked...SHOCKED...that you have gambling in this casino, Rick.

Posted by JohnMcC | July 31, 2008 2:28 PM

The question is how much Obama will disappoint them, and in what ways, if elected.

HAH! At this point if we get a President that simply doesn't actively f*** up, we'll be WAY ahead of the last 7+ years.

I'm sure, however, he will disappoint Bush and McCain's base.

"What? You mean we don't get huge tax breaks? What do you mean that you're going to keep sensible regulation in place? What do you mean the the DoJ, SEC, FDA, OCC, OTS, CDC, EPA, and a host of other departments will actually be allowed to, you know, do their freakin' jobs? That's not right. They're supposed to do whatever turns a short-term profit for us. You're forcing us into uncharted territory; making money through long-term growth and smart, competent decisions." --Random Wealthy Bush/McCain Business Supporter

Posted by LFC | July 31, 2008 2:42 PM

Same metrics for non-wounded troops, sick patients in hospitals, abused women, etc. At least we would come up with something resembling a compassion index.

Not fair. Only one candidate has had the chance to show how he treats the wife who raised his children when she's injured and disfigured.

Posted by Gregory | July 31, 2008 5:38 PM

Since Obama DID visit wounded troops while he was in Iraq, maybe McCain could have run both ads.

Posted by Consumatopia | July 31, 2008 5:50 PM

Didn't everyone know this already? It's sooooooooo obvious. Which is why Obama's staff screwed up big time even trying a visit with the wounded. It was a no win situation because in fact any visit would be trading off of them.

Sure, it's OK for Republican's to do it but them's the ground rules and you have to play by them.

Posted by rapier | July 31, 2008 7:12 PM