Five Things

McKinnon said McCain would be happy to have Bush campaign with him in the fall...

Yes! Please please please ...

2. John McCain gives a speech on his plans for mortgage crisis and the economy. The speech is panned for being kinda-vague. So, as The Page points out, John McCain releases another statement on the mortgage crisis and the economy.

When legislation was introduced that would have cracked down on the sort of predatory lending practices that have, in part, led to the current mortgage crisis, John McCain voted against it. His remarks this week on the economy were garbage that showed he has no clue what he's talking about.

Mr. Scherer, this food processor dump of random McCain McNuggets is just embarrassing. Here is what I would like you to do if you are seeking credibility as a journalist:

1. Ask McCain if it was a mistake for the US to withdraw from Vietnam, and, if so, how long should America have continued the war.

2. Ask McCain if the US should ever be the first to use nuclear weapons in a military confrontation.

3. Ask McCain why his committee has not released the vast amount of Abramoff investigation material that it collected.

4. Ask McCain how he would react to petroleum shortages in the United States, should they occur while he is President.

5. Ask McCain if he accepts Bush's "Unitary Executive" doctrine of unlimited Presidential power in wartime.

6. Ask McCain if he believes Ahmad Chalabi is a trustworthy individual who should lead the government of Iraq.

If you are going to be a bozo on the bus, at least serve the interests of the American people and ask some questions that bear on McCains suitability to serve in the White House.

So Mike, may we ask where McKinnon gets the evidence that W has a "personal (as opposed to job performance) approval rating of better than 50 percent?" Or why you would repeat the claim without fact-checking it?

"...McKinnon pointed out, [Bush] has a personal (as opposed to job performance) approval rating of better than 50 percent..."

Mr. Scherer, since you failed to fact-check this complete piece of baloney, and you surely know that campaign executives are notorious liars who constantly attempt to get journalists to uncritically publish their lies, I have just one thing to say to you:

Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy. Lazy.

How embarrassing is it for Karen Tumulty to work on the same blog as this idiot?

Michael allow Atrios to show you where McKinnon is lying to you and how you can quickly correct your error: http://atrios.blogspot.com/

Bush favorability:

NBC: Very Positive+Somewhat Positive=33% Newsweek: 33% Pew: Very Favorable+Mostly Favorable=35% Fox: 35% Diageo/Hotline: 38%

Unlike McKinnon, we'll even give you a reference site:

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

See how easy it is to use "teh Google"?

A little harsh here, guys. McKinnon is wrong about Bush's favorability ratings. You can see them here at PollingReport.

Recent ones are mostly at around 35% so slightly higher than his approval rating, which tends to be close to 30%, but not by much.

And in polls that measure intensity, he gets around 40% to say they have a very unfavorable impression of him.

Michael, you might want to add an update saying that McKinnon is simply wrong. Remember what happened when Carney screwed up his numbers on Clinton's approval rating. You don't want this to end up in your wiki like it did with Jay.

I Googled President Bush+Personal Approval ratings and couldn't find anything that supports McKinnon's claim.
I assume since it was regurgitated uncritically you have source.

Michael,
McCain's solution for the housing crisis is "I will consider all proposals". What!?!?!! He is supposed to be applying for the position of "Leader of the Free World"! What kind of leader does that make him? Please, Please, Please write about this!

I guess it is a dangerous thing to just tell people what I have been reading, since it's taken as an endorsement. I have updated the post above to clarify, in response to your concerns. I am not agreeing with the McKinnon claim, just saying the exchange was interesting, especially the idea that Bush could be an asset on the trail just because some people like him personally, but still dislike the job he is doing.

No, Michael, it's not dangerous to tell people what you've been reading. It is, however, your job to report on the context of what you're covering. I think we're all a little sick of reporters who treat their job as little more than "court stenographer." If that sentiment has been unfairly projected onto you here, that's unfortunate but probably inevitable.

The trouble is, Michael, that the Republicans have based their whole cult of Bush thing on the idea that he is such a beloved guy. The kind of guy you want to have a beer with. A steak and chops guy. The guy who gives you a jump when your car won't start.

And as for all this John Hughes stuff, I have two words for you: Net Flix. You can tear up to Pretty In Pink and Some Kind Of Wonderful to your heart's content for only $14 a month.

There are a couple factors to consider when evaluating the NBC/WSJ poll (from swimming freestyle):

* The margin of error shouldn't be ignored. Obama's decline in positive ratings (and uptick in negative ratings) is within the margin of the sample and, therefore, statistically insignificant.
* 31% of those polled didn't see Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech? I would argue those folks aren't paying a lick of attention to the primary battle and cast doubt on their poll responses.
* Both of the match-ups (Obama/McCain and Clinton/McCain) are within the 3.7% margin of error. Once again, statistically insignificant difference. Bottom line: everything's tied up.
* Re: Democrats voting for McCain if their candidate isn't the nominee. I don't buy it. Come November, when those Democrats go into the voting booth and have to choose a Democrat or McCain, they won't vote for McCain. It sounds good and defiant now, but it's just not gonna happen.
(http://swimmingfreestyle.typepad.com)

Michael, no self pity, please. You're not employed to tell us what you're reading; you're supposed to be selectively reporting what you think is important, based on wide reading, source checking, and careful analysis.

Time has given you a big shovel. All we ask is that you use it to dig instead of spread manure.

UPDATE: As noted in the comments below, public polls have not shown Bush approval above 50 for a while, though the RNC/Rove crowd has a history of claiming higher personal numbers than the public polls, based I would assume on how the private GOP polls ask the question.

Yes. Like: "Would you prefer to see George Bush in a bar drinking a beer?"

Cheers,

Michael: if it takes people pointing to the actual poll numbers for you to comment on the TRUTH VALUE of McKinnon's comments, we're in deep doodoo. We're in 'shape of earth: views differ' territory.

Journalism has to be about more than 'it's true that X said Y'. If you don't appreciate why this annoys us so much, then you're in the wrong trade.

It would be equally interesting if McKinnon had said that Bush had grown wings and could fly, and equally dumb to report it without comment.

"Would you prefer to see George Bush stuffed and mounted above your fireplace?"

Sure!

I for one think its fabulous that St. McCain will be campaigning with the Shrub.

Guys, it is necessary to be this hostile about a fairly innocuous (and overall interesting) post? Can we give a brother a break here sometimes?

I guess it is a dangerous thing to just tell people what I have been reading, since it's taken as an endorsement. I have updated the post above to clarify, in response to your concerns. I am not agreeing with the McKinnon claim, just saying the exchange was interesting, especially the idea that Bush could be an asset on the trail just because some people like him personally, but still dislike the job he is doing.

FastEddie pointed this out, but just to jump into this off the back of his point:

The problem at least with this one little nugget is the lack of fact checking. Yes, you read something and posted/reported on it. Good job. But if you're going to be reporting on it in an official capcity like this, it's your duty to do a little fact checking and verification. Because not doing that for something with easily verified facts will either look like lazy stenography or, like you fear, an endorsement, since it will otherwise look like you willfully ignored the facts contradicting it.

Yeah, it's a quibbling point on this post in particular, but it's something I've noted here, in yours and others' posts.

As much as I don't want to pull the "these damn kids today" card, I agree that teenage-themed movies now are either horror flicks or gross-out fests.

Hughes should do a 20-year reunion (or 25, at this point) for either Breakfast Club or Sixteen Candles. Men like me in our 30s (and soon 40s) could get a crush on Molly Ringwold all over again, while the women could drool over Jake (whatever that guy's real name was, and if they can find him).

Oh well ...

Mr. Scherer, from your comment: "...because some people like [Bush] personally...." Was it really necessary for you to mischaracterize the quote in your original post? The lying McCain campaign official in your quote did not claim that SOME people like Bush; he claimed that MOST people like Bush. HUGE difference. What you're doing here is defending laziness with dishonesty.

PLEASE explain to your readers why you and your fellow journalists won't take the time to fact check what you read and republish. Currently, none of your readers have any idea why you let yourselves be patsies for professional liars.

Doh! Whatever you do, don't watch the "X Movie" movies! (Where X = Epic, Scary, High School, whatever). They have been scientifically proven to give you hepatitis.

McKinnon probably meant that junior had personal approval ratings above 50% among Republicans. McCain at this point is only going to Republican venues, when he's not entertaining his base, the bozos on The Bus.

Yes, it's supposedly a minor thing not worthy of hostility, except that repeating those kinds of Republican lies and distortions tend to take on a life of their own and find their way to Page A-1 super duper headlines of the Washington Post: (huge bold type size) "BUSH APPROVAL RATINGS SOAR ABOVE 50% !!!!!!!!"

Scherer: Why not another Breakfast Club, another Ferris Bueller, another Trains, Planes and Automobiles?

Er, we have Superbad, Juno, or even The 40-Year-Old Virgin, which was pretty much made for those of us who were big Hughes fans back in the 80's...

Oh; like you didn't know that Epic Movie was gonna be craptastic. C'mon.

The RNC/Rove crowd has a history of claiming higher personal numbers than the public polls, based I would assume on how the private GOP polls ask the question.

Why do you assume this? Have you done any reporting on the subject? We're talking over 15 points here; it's hard to imagine how wording gives that big a difference.

Following up on this theme of problems with political journalism, I'm wondering what exactly the Obama campaign have to do to make the media talk about their negativity. Accuse Clinton of torturing small animals in her spare time? If the Clinton campaign had been explicitly attacking Obama's character in the same way the Obama campaign has been attacking her, his approval ratings would "be in the gutter." And the media would be saying that she is destroying the Democratic party and has no character.

Earlier in this campaign I thought that the media would probably turn against Obama and favor the Republican nominee (except if it was Romney) in the general. That's already starting to happen. They are buying the Obama campaign talking points on Clinton but ignoring their valid criticisms of McCain. Clearly the media has learned nothing from 2000 and 2004. Let's hope that voters in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana and the Superdelegates have longer memories.

Rose, you have matched RKA for objectivity here.

Rose-

What color is the sky in your world?

mattn, click the link in that sentence of the post.

Attaturk's right, it's not hard to use Google. Here's what I found (PDF):

The President also has a reserve of voter goodwill about him personally. Fully fifty-six percent (56%) of likely voters approve of the President personally, driven by voter sentiments that he is a person of strong moral character and integrity.

jfb-

When you look at that it is not a ringing endorsement. Only 56% think that Bush "is a person of strong moral character and integrity?" That means that 44% don't. Nearly half the nation, no matter if they agree with his policies, or approve of the job he's doing, or not, think Bush is NOT a person of strong moral character and integrity. That's not good.

Er, we have Superbad, Juno, or even The 40-Year-Old Virgin, which was pretty much made for those of us who were big Hughes fans back in the 80's...

And let's not forget about the WB network.

Hey now, Oregon JC....I am pretty objective. It just happens to be that the truth is more frequently on Obama's side than Hillary's or the media's...that's not my fault!

Don't forget...

I have stated my opinion that Obama is lying when he says HIllary is not playing the race card.

And I said that the Monster comment by Samantha Powers was a premeditated hit by the Obama camp, just as the Bob Johnson hit was premeditated from HIllary.

If I were getting talking points from the Obama campaign, those assertions on my part would most certainly not be on them!

On the other hand, Rose's point very conveniently mirrors Mark Haperin's pro-HIllary message of the day.

http://thepage.time.com/2008/03/27/the-new-negative/

Which is precisely the meme the Clinton camp has been pushing...

That being said, I appreciate that Rose makes her agenda perfectly clear...unlike some "Chris Dodd supporters" who shall remain nameless!

"If the Clinton campaign had been explicitly attacking Obama's character in the same way the Obama campaign has been attacking her, his approval ratings would "be in the gutter."

I think it's really hard to make the argument that Clinton has been less negative than Obama. Both sides have made some pretty slimy claims and statements, and both sides have drawn legitimate contrasts. So, I'm not sure where you're getting this from (expect perhaps from a biased view of your candidate).

"They are buying the Obama campaign talking points on Clinton but ignoring their valid criticisms of McCain. Clearly the media has learned nothing from 2000 and 2004. Let's hope that voters in Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Indiana and the Superdelegates have longer memories."

You seem to be suggesting that the media will have a vendetta against Obama in the general election but not against Clinton, or that Clinton can withstand this vendetta, but Obama cannot. I just don't see it this way. Why do you think the media would treat her any differently against McCain (whom they adore) than they would Obama? And no, I don't think she could withstand more negative press in the general given that her favorability ratings are already low. The Rev. Wright flap showed us if Obama gets hit, his favorability ratings may sink a little, but likely will never dip as low as Clinton's.

TomT: And let's not forget about the WB network.

I forgot about the CW...prolly for a good reason...

The Obama campaign has gone astonishingly negative. They have repeatedly accused Clinton of being willing to do anything to win, compared her husband to Joe McCarthy, and then a senior aide actually said that it was an insult to Joe McCarthy to compare him to Bill Clinton, and brought up Lewinsky (for the second time). They also tried to tie Clinton to Wright, and then got upset when she pointed out that she wouldn't choose a pastor like Wright. And they have been desperately avoiding re-votes in Florida and Michigan while saying that Clinton would be overturning the will of the voters if she wins with Superdelegate support (although they both need Superdelegates to win).

And if the media isn't biased against Clinton why did her misstatements about her Bosnia trip dominate multiple newscylces while Obama's misstatements about his relationship with Rezko have been largely ignored?

In the S.C. debate, when Clinton brought Rezko up, Obama said: "Here's what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to." But in the Chicago Tribune Interview he said that he at times spoke daily with Rezko about strategy, had dinner with him and his wife, even went on a day trip to visit Rezko at his place in Lake Geneva, and that Rezko had raised $250,000 for his campaigns.

The media is not being objective in this campaign. They have one standard for McCain, one standard for Obama, and another standard for Clinton. I understand that there are many excellent reasons to support Obama, and arguably even McCain. But shouldn't voters be making these decisions, not the media?

RKA, I actually have been talking about this for a long time, before Halperin ever mentioned it. I never remember on which sites I post which things, so maybe I haven't posted about it on Swampland. And even now I'm not saying that Clinton has generally been running a less negative campaign than Obama has. I do think that in the past couple of weeks he has clearly gone more negative than she has, but my problem isn't really with the Obama campaign. They are just doing their job. But the media is failing to do their job when they ignore the negativity of the Obama campaign.

mpizzle, I think that the media will be equally biased against Obama or Clinton if they are the nominee. But she is more electable.

After the 2004 elections, Karl Rove began to talk with growing conviction about a permanent majority for the Republican Party. That majority lasted two more years. It would have been difficult then to imagine a more stunning reversal.

I know that such a comparison is often thought to be in poor taste, but it seems so appropriate here: Was anyone else reminded of the so-called Thousand-Year Reich when the "permanent majority" quote first hit? Such hubris. Such unbelievable hubris.

mpizzle, I think that the media will be equally biased against Obama or Clinton if they are the nominee. But she is more electable.

I just want to note one thing:

'Electability' gave us John Kerry.

That NYTimes article was interesting - thanks for posting! As an Illinoisian, who was inundated by all those lying sliming NRCC/Oberweis ads in the special election, I can only say that I'm glad that Mr. Cole isn't going to infest the airwaves yet again this November with more Republican lies/slimes. Those stuningly corrupt, warmongering, torturing, Geneva Convention shredding, women's liberty destroying, spendthrift, bribe-taking, treasonous covert CIA agent-outing, criminal perpetrator sentence-commutating, cronyistic, Justice Department politicizing, climate change ignoring, trillions of dollars wasting lying sliming Republicans have another thang coming if they think that the land of most John Hughes films (Illinois) are going to vote for their lying sliming ice cream magnates or wrestling coaches again!

Out here in Illinois, we kind of like that Obama fellow...

Kryptik, I absolutely agree about Kerry. Democrats are unfortunately really bad at predicting electability and polls at this point tell us almost nothing. But a lot of the arguments that people use to say that Obama is the most electable candidate are very similar to the ones that were used by Kerry's supporters (they have gravitas, etc.).

Right now the Republicans have absolutely no incentive drive down the less electable candidate's poll numbers. They'll start doing that in August. And that's the core problem the Clinton campaign faces in their electability arguments. They can only be proved right after they've lost.

Also, I just want to make it clear that in my last posting I was saying that the media has three different standards for McCain, Obama, and Clinton (my wording was a little unclear). The media is obviously holding McCain to a much lower standard.

Uh oh, John is going all Howard Hughes on us.

I am assuming that this is your job, Michael... that Time is paying you for this. So maybe you would want to be proud of the job you do and want to do a good job like most Americans who work to put a meal on their table. So instead of doing little more than what I could do in my spare time, why not actually treat this like a job and impress us with your skills and knowledge. Either that or quit and let someone who has some talent and is willing to work hard get a shot at it for a change.

I am assuming that this is your job, Michael... that Time is paying you for this. So maybe you would want to be proud of the job you do and want to do a good job like most Americans who work to put a meal on their table. So instead of doing little more than what I could do in my spare time, why not actually treat this like a job and impress us with your skills and knowledge. Either that or quit and let someone who has some talent and is willing to work hard get a shot at it for a change.

America does a good job of identifying talented young people. The Ivy League universities routinely accept hundreds of applicants with perfect college board scores and outstanding achievements in high school. Many of these very bright individuals go on to graduate with high honors. Some of these exceptional graduates are attracted to leading media companies and news organizations.

So when a mediocre news product comes out of Time-Warner-Moloch, you can be damned sure that it is not because there are no razor sharp, workaholic young people available to report and write the news. What you can assume is that somebody is skewing the coverage, pulling the punches, and spiking the stories.

Scherer does not ask McCain the tough questions we are begging him to ask because he has chosen not to. Either he doesn't want to be thrown off the bozo bus, or his editors have told him to win the "trust" of the McCain gang and pitch softballs.

I am disgusted by this obvious failure of responsibility in a prominent American media organization, but I understand that this is to be expected when a corporation is corrupted by exposure to political pressure and short-term profit maximization.

The essence of journalism is verification. Ha.

This is standard fare: "journalists" report on what people say while ignoring the truth of those words. This is what their precious "personal relationships" give them, access to gossip that they then pass along credulously. They report "interesting" exchanges (AKA propaganda and PR) and call it a day. That's why they have to ride around on a bus and eat ribs and birthday cake, it gives them access to the gossip they crave.

More he-said/he-said with a total disregard for the facts.

Pro tip: what people say is rarely news. What people DO is the true news.