The excesses of water-carrying for McCain
There’s probably little point to arguing that much of the political media establishment is embarrassingly in the tank for John McCain, but the Washington Post has been especially frustrating this week.
On Monday, for example, reporter Jonathan Weisman noted that McCain is faring well in national polls because he’s been “branded” an “independent maverick.” Suggesting that the reputation is deserved, Weisman mentioned, “[McCain] fought the GOP over tobacco in 1998” — without noting that McCain shamelessly flip-flopped on the issue.
On Tuesday, Richard Cohen sought to dismiss McCain’s flip-flopping ways, calling him an “honorable man who has fudged and ducked and swallowed the truth on occasion,” which Cohen described as “understandable.” (He didn’t say why McCain’s mendacity is “understandable,” but simply granted absolution.)
And today, David Broder, a long-time McCain ally, kept the streak going.
Yet, in pointing to those vulnerabilities in her rival, Clinton has heightened the most obvious liability she would carry into a fight against McCain. In an age of deep cynicism about politicians of both parties, McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest.
Broder didn’t say who makes this assumption about McCain’s integrity, which is odd, because I can think of all kinds of examples of McCain “sacrificing personal credibility to prevail” politically.
Perhaps Broder could take a look at that flip-flop list I put together (and continue to update thanks to McCain’s penchant for changing directions). In nearly every instance, McCain abandoned a more moderate position for a far more conservative one, and in each case, it was a transparent effort to curry favor with the Republican Party’s far-right base in order to help him with the GOP presidential nomination.
Taking Broder’s analysis at face value, it’s literally true. McCain isn’t assumed to throw his credibility away to win an election, but therein lies the problem — he does it all the time, and gets away with it, precisely because of these faulty assumptions.
The way to hold McCain (or any other political figure) accountable is to highlight the cynical ideological shifts. Instead, we have Weisman, Cohen, and Broder doing the opposite.
Kevin, who’s a little more forgiving on the subject than I am, added some astute thoughts on the subject:
[I]t’s not as if the only way to fight this legend is by pretending that the polar opposite is true instead. McCain is hardly the most devious politician on the national stage. But there’s plenty of evidence that his MO is to get outsized credit for a very small number of mavericky stands while spending about 98% of his political life doing all the usual things that career politicians do. He hangs with lobbyists, he does favors for big contributors, he waffles on positions that might hurt him, he panders to constituencies whose votes he needs, and he very rarely takes a politically risky stand on anything. In other words, he’s just a normal pol with a really good PR shop.
And for all the talk about how ambitious Hillary is, does anyone really doubt that McCain has her well beaten on that score? He ran as a conservative bulldog in 2000, he moderated his positions and seriously considered switching parties to run as VP in 2004, and then switched back to Mr. Conservative afterward to prep for yet another run in 2008. McCain really, really, REALLY wants to be president. Isn’t it about time someone noticed that?
If Weisman, Cohen, or Broder wanted to tackle Kevin’s question, I’m sure we’d all appreciate it.
Trial date in Paul vs. Clinton to be set on Friday
Posted 21 hours, 24 minutes
A status conference hearing is scheduled for Friday, April 25, 2008, in Los Angeles California, to finally set a trial date in Paul vs. Clinton.
California Superior Judge Aurelio N. Munoz delayed setting a trial date back in February, but is scheduled to set a trial date this Friday.
Judge Munoz ruled back in February that Paul’s legal team can begin seeking depositions from a host of big names – including Bill, Hillary and Chelsea Clinton, along with an A-list of Hollywood celebrities that allegedly were witnesses to an effort by the Clintons and top Democratic leaders to extract millions of dollars from Paul in illegal donations and then cover it up. Discovery in the trial is expected to start in May.
The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.
The complaint says Bill Clinton promised to promote Paul’s Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife’s 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for an August 2000 Hollywood gala and fundraiser.
The Clintons’ legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul’s attorney Colette Wilson has stated there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.
Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.
The complaint also asserts that Senator Clinton filed four false reports to the FEC of Paul’s donations in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. But one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities.
Senator Clinton was dismissed from the case as a defendant, but Munoz already has made it clear he won’t accept any attempts to block Senator Clinton from serving as a material witness. The judge told Clinton’s lawyer David Kendall: “Well, any opposition is probably going to be dead on arrival, if that will – if you understand what I’m saying, Mr. Kendall.”
DOJ Prosecutor Dan Schwaber told a jury in May, 2005 at the trial of Hillary’s finance director David Rosen, that it was a crime “to deny the public’s right to know that Peter Paul personally gave more than $1.2 million to Hillary’s national campaign”.
Paul has outlined the entire case in a one hour documentary entitled, Hillary Uncensored, Banned by the Media.
Although Paul is a three time convicted felon, he has passed a lie detector’s test in answering questions as to whether there was an agreement made for Stan Lee Media to hire Bill Clinton once he left the White House. Paul also claims he has several hours of home video of Senator Clinton, and states, “her own words will indict her”.
How much longer will the media continue to cover-up this case for Senator Clinton and deny the voters right to know about this trial?
If Barack Obama or the media doesn’t begin to ask questions about the upcoming Peter Paul trial, and the four false FEC reports that were filed, John McCain and the GOP will.
Peter Paul has set up a website PaulvClinton which will report the trial date, and news and information in the trial as it happens. You can sign up to receive e-mails of news in the trial as it happens. (You can also read Peter Paul’s blog at Peter F. Paul.com for information on this case).
Note: To verify this upcoming trial: you can go to http: http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org
Choose Civil – then Case Summary – type in the Case # BC 304174
PETER F PAUL VS WILLIAM JEFFERSON CLINTON
Filing Date: 10/14/2003
If Weisman, Cohen, or Broder wanted to tackle Kevin’s question, I’m sure we’d all appreciate it.
They can’t. McCain’s latest BBQ was running low on cole slaw, so they volunteered to make a grocery run.
Maybe when they get back — but Dean Broder promised to do Cindy’s nails.
If the Wapo editorial page is prime journalistic real estate, it’s about due for some urban renewal.
As much as anything else, presidential campaigns are won and lost by the media narratives that rightly or wrongly come to define a candidate. In the case of Repubican nominee John McCain, the seemingly unshakable narrative of the political “maverick” could not be further off the mark. At almost every turn, McCain in his eternal quest for the White House has reversed long-held positions, compromised core principles and swallowed his pride in order to curry favor with both the leading lights of the conservative movement and right-wing Republican primary voters. The untold story of campaign 2008 is simply that of John McCain’s transformation from maverick to prostitute.
For the details, see:
“From Maverick to Prostitute: The Untold Story of John McCain.”
If we’re going to hold a contest for which media member does the best job fluffing McCain, I vote for this doozy from the current issue of US News and World Report:
http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2008/4/18/mccain-knows-where-to-vote-shop-costco.html
McCain can spin and B.S. with the best of them.
Anyone notice how he turned Willard Romney into a cheese eating surrender monkey in the Florida primary? Poor old Mittens just moderately suggested in a debate that maybe getting out of Irak someday might be a good idea.
McCain kneecapped him with this and then McCain buried poor old Mittens.
So the moral of the story is, reporters may give McCain the benefit of doubt with the Maverick label, McCain really, reeeally wants to be president and will do what it takes (see the sad tale of Mittens) to get the job.
He even kissed up to Bush and that had to McSuck Big Time.
This just backs up a point I made yesterday. McCain is the darling of the media, and I would bet there’s a 90% chance he will be annointed president. Hell, when Chris Matthews called the punditocracy McCain’s base, he spoke the truth, whether he realizes it or not.
I just don’t get it. Why? Why is the media giving Mccain a free pass? Why is our country so beholden to republicanism, an ideology that for the past 30 years has moved our country backwards???
Yes, the MSM is owned by a small handful of giants that vote republican because they are filthy rich and extremely greedy, but I just don’t see how they have managed to maintain a stranglehold on the political discourse.
I guess the better question would be, “Why, after mountains of evidence produced over the last 30 years proves that conservative republicanism is a failure, does the press still treat conservatives with respect and democrats with disdain?”
And one more question while I am on the subjest: WTF was the Reagan revolution? I found myself pondering that on the drive to work this morning. I mean really, WTF did Reagan actually do to benefit this country, and have his term called a ‘revolution’???
(And trolls, don’t get started on winning the cold war, it would have happened no matter who was in the White House. Reagan just got lucky he was president at the time)
citizen_pain #7 –
“Why, after mountains of evidence produced over the last 30 years proves that conservative republicanism is a failure, does the press still treat conservatives with respect and democrats with disdain?”
Because to them, it’s not a failure. The pundits are all fat cats. They’ve had it great over the last 30 years, and the Bush years have been spectacular, with promise of more to come under McCain. The flat tax or fair tax, with its elimination of estate taxes and capital gains taxes altogether, and either lower flat income tax rate or, even better, a sales tax, were beyond their wildest dreams before the right wing revolution.
They sit around getting paid to write or talk about this stuff, and have a ball doing it. They live in a bubble. They have no idea how Americans live. Gasoline prices? Chump change to them. Health care? They’ve got the best in the world. Recession – sure, that bothers them a bit, because they see their stock portfolions dropping from 20 million to 17 million, but they know they’ll go back up in time, and grow, and grow, and grow, and without those pesky capital gains taxes that they’ve always had to pay. Iraq war? They got huge tax cuts for it, and the defense contractors in their stock portfolios are making a fortune. Their kids aren’t fighting.
They have a great life. The Democrats might shake things up a bit. Not a lot – those in power are wealthy, too – but enough to make them uneasy. Why would they rock this boat? It’s a luxury cruise for them.
It’s not just McCain, although he does get extra special treatment. They put that moron Bush in the White House. They had to know what a jerk he was. But look what he did for them. It’s only the common people in America who don’t vote in their own economic interests.
Look, David Broder in the period after 9/11 compared GWB to Abraham Lincoln didn’t he? Who are these morons?
citizen pain, and hark ..8 and 9 ….
just to back it up …. check this …. and , yep, these millionaire journalists tried to conceal what you will read below from everyone ………
Daily Howler logo
THIS IS YOUR PROFESSOR ON YOUTUBE! The saddest part of Patterson’s piece is the part which explains who he is: // link // print // previous // next //
TUESDAY, MARCH 11, 2008
THE HAPPY BIRTHDAY EXPRESS: “I honestly don’t know what to say about this.” Those were Brother Greenwald’s words when he posted the videotape of the press corps’ recent fete at John McCain’s crib in Sedona. For ourselves, we recalled a grander affair, conducted during the 2004 Republican convention in New York. A certain saint threw himself a birthday bash—and darlings, forget about Holly Bailey! When the sanctified solon turned 68, the firmament’s biggest stars were there! To his credit (explanation below), Richard Leiby did the play-by-play for the Washington Post. This is your press corps on creme brulee—French tarts, loin of lamb, lobster salad:
LEIBY (8/31/04): Sen. John McCain tended to his political base Sunday night: the entire national media. The maverick Arizona Republican, once (and future?) presidential aspirant and press secretary’s dream hosted a hyper-exclusive 68th birthday party for himself at La Goulue on Madison Avenue, leaving no media icon behind. Guests included NBC’s Tom Brokaw and Tim Russert, ABC’s Peter Jennings, Barbara Walters, Ted Koppel and George Stephanopoulos, CBS’s Mike Wallace, Dan Rather and Bob Schieffer, CBS News President Andrew Heyward, ABC News chief David Westin, Time Warner CEO Richard Parsons, CNN’s Judy Woodruff and Jeff Greenfield, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews, CNBC’s Gloria Borger, PBS’s Charlie Rose—pause here to exhale—and U.S. News & World Report publisher Mort Zuckerman, Washington Post Chairman Don Graham, New York Times columnists William Safire and David Brooks, author Michael Lewis and USA Today columnist Walter Shapiro. They and others dined on lobster salad, loin of lamb, assorted wines, creme brulee, lemon souffle and French tarts.
[…]
One guest, who asked not to be identified, described invitees as “the Journalistic Committee for a Government of National Unity.” After singing “Happy Birthday” to McCain, many of the guests—Russert, Borger and Shapiro, among others—cabbed to Elaine’s, where Zuckerman hosted a mob scene that included Fox’s Bill O’Reilly, PBS’s John McLaughlin and New York Gov. George Pataki, The Post’s Mark Leibovich reports. By 11 p.m. the Second Avenue landmark—with red carpet outside—was elbow-to-elbow with martini-sipping guests. Thus commenced Campaign 2008 (we think).
Somehow, it was the singing of “Happy Birthday” which always struck us as most wrong: At any rate, free food! And plenty of pandering! And after they sang “Happy Birthday” to Mac, the gang cabbed it up to Elaine’s.
If you don’t understand the press corps’ coverage of McCain, perhaps you can find a hint or two in Leiby’s dispatch.
Last Friday, Jamison Foser did a superlative post about the way this gang of hopeless galoots insists on calling McCain a “war hero”—even when the designation bears no resemblance to the issue at hand. Beyond that, reporters love to work McCain’s “straight talk” slogan into “reporting.” Stephanopoulos sang “Happy Birthday” that night—and soon was asking the saintly solon for “straight talk answers” on ABC’s air. To judge from Leiby’s guest list, E. J. Dionne wasn’t big enough to make the affair at La Goulue (French for “glutton”), but today he describes his ongoing love for the Great McCain—and he shamelessly equates Obama and Farrakhan to McCain and Hagee. It’s hard to be more disingenuous that that, as many others have already noted. But so what? This has gone on for the past dozen years, and may well decide this year’s race.
But readers, back to the birthday brawl! We first posted Leiby’s text in October 2004, after Ted Koppel attended a fete for Colin Powell instead of prepping for a critical Nightline (see THE DAILY HOWLER, 10/19/04).On that date, we offered links to past HOWLER posts which showed the big stars of the mainstream “press corps” at play with the people they “cover.” We saw Russert at Rumsfeld’s Christmas party, bragging that he had foreseen Saddam’s capture. (He had seen it in a dream!) We saw Koppel attending that Powell bash, then failing on that night’s critical program. We saw Gwen Ifill dining with Darling Condi, then rolling over for her gal pal in a major interview.
Yes. This is the way your “press corps” works—though Kevin and Josh and Matt won’t tell you. Sedona was just a suggestion, a cook-out, a small affair thrown for the proles.
By the way—why the praise for Leiby’s report? (It appeared in “Reliable Source.”) Here’s why: The “press corps” didn’t just sing “Happy Birthday” to McCain in 2004—they gave him a subsequent birthday gift. You see, despite the star power at that bash, almost no one reported it! Lloyd Grove did a brief piece in the Daily News, saying McCain had thrown “a smallish dinner” (text below). But almost no one else in the press corps mentioned this event at all. You see, they luvv to do celebrity stories—unless the celebrities involved are themselves. In that case, they know they must hide their behavior—the behavior of their group’s biggest players. The comical story of Jack Welch’s “Lost Boys of the Sconset?” That comical—and revealing—story has almost never appeared in print. Within the clan, housebroken pool boys know they must hide the truth about how the “press” lives and functions.
They sing Happy Birthday to those they adore—and then, they pimp to get them elected. Dionne is pimping again today, just as he’s done in the past. The comparison to Obama is disgracefully fake. But so what? Saint John gets a toast.
Lloyd Grove’s smallish dinner: In the Daily News, Grove seemed to get the scope of things wrong. That said, we don’t mean to criticize Grove. Few others said word the first:
GROVE (8/31/04): McCAIN FOR SOMETHING! The media elite met to eat at La Goulue Sunday at a smallish dinner hosted by media favorite John McCain and wife Cindy.
The buzz was that the press-friendly Arizona senator, who was celebrating his 68th birthday, is considering another run for President four years from now.
“This is like any other trade convention—everybody’s talking about what the new power mower might be,” quipped McCain ad-maker Mike Murphy. Among the guests were Tom Brokaw, Peter Jennings, Ted Koppel and Dan Rather, Barbara Walters, Jeff Greenfield and even New York Times book critic Michiko Kakutani.
“Oh I see,” one diner remarked on surveying the crowd. “It’s a party for the base.
That was Grove’s entire item. According to Nexis, this was the second longest account of this heady, newsworthy affair.
“McCain is the rare exception who is not assumed to be willing to sacrifice personal credibility to prevail in any contest.”
this statement is mind boggling. i think i understand what they’re doing though — they’re pretending mccain didn’t exist between the 2000 election and his “winning” the republican nomination.
unless broder was unconcious during and after the 2000 election, it’s hard to know how he could not be aware of such highlights as:
(credit to rusblib at http://www.bartcopnation.com/dc/dcboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=8&topic_id=522)
Among the rumors circulated against McCain in 2000 in South Carolina was that his adopted Bangladeshi daughter was actually black, that McCain was both gay and cheated on his wife, and that his wife Cindy was a drug addict.”
Using the code word “temper,” a group of Senate Republicans, and at least some outriders of the George W. Bush campaign, are spreading the word that John McCain is unstable. The subtext, also suggested in this whispering campaign, is that he returned from 5 1/2 years as a POW in North Vietnam with a loose screw. And it is bruited about that he shouldn’t be entrusted with nuclear weapons.”
Hark at 8. Absolutely.
Wow, some ridiculously long comments. I just wanted to say that John McCain is exposed in the book Free Ride: John McCain and the Media. Great Book. Well referenced. Worth reading.
“I just don’t get it. Why? Why is the media giving Mccain a free pass? Why is our country so beholden to republicanism, an ideology that for the past 30 years has moved our country backwards???”
For the reasons mentioned up the page, and because their logic seems to go like this:
a) McCain would have been the GOP candidate if the MSM hadn’t fallen head over heels for Bush back in 2000 and basically acted as his PR team. Supporting him now encourages him to cleanse them of their guilt for that completely understandable and easily forgivable error in judgement through the medium of BBQ and jovial back-slapping.
b) McCain would have beaten Gore easily, (because, y’know, Americans would never elect a boring old Democrat to the Presidency when they had a genuine Republican war-hero to vote for) and thus the MSM wouldn’t have had to pretend that Bush didn’t lose the 2000 Election.
c) McCain wouldn’t have made Bush’s mistakes, but would have done wonderful, manly things in a wonderful, manly way, and everyone would have loved him as much as they do. So the MSM wouldn’t have had to carry water for an embarrassing failure for the next eight years, so their reputation would still be intact, and they wouldn’t be facing competition from a bunch of jumped-up computer nerds who don’t understand how the world “really works”.
d) McCain getting the White House now rewrites the historical record to make the Bush Years a strange and unattributable blip that can safely be blamed on the American electorate and, probably, the Democrats, for selfishly failing to field candidates who aren’t John McCain.
e) McCain isn’t black, and he isn’t a woman, and everyone thinks he’s the guy from the Die Hard movies, so he’s bound to win anyway.