SwampCast: John McCain, a Switch Blade, the Toga Party, an Exotic Dancer, and a Box of Bullets

Well he did cheat on his first wife, and as you mentioned yesterday, he's not gaining any traction with the fundies.

So I guess the "sure I'm a hypocritical a$$ but don't you wish you were me?" storyline might just play in Peorea. Certainly there's enough of a shameless double standard among the R's to allow him to try it.

Why does John McSame's "biography tour" end with the end of his military service? Doesn't he want to run on the rest of his bio? Like leaving his first wife for a younger, wealthier model? His years taking bribes from Charles Keating? His flip flops on a whole host of political issues? Cindy's drug abuse and thefts from charities?

Sounds like a rather lazy attempt to exploit the military for political purposes. Shocker coming from a Republican.

Does this not make his current personal life fair game? Should he not be grilled the way David Paterson was grilled?

As Florida says, his behavior didn't stop in his 20s or 30s. Why should we think it has stopped now?

And why is McCain's rakish past cute, while Clinton's is appalling?

I'm more than willing to give McCain a pass on his reckless youth, but not on his reckless present.

McCain has refused secret service protection, and has said if elected he will have minimal security. He seems to have confused his own lack of fear with a lack of danger.

This is either an outrageous arrogance or the sort of bravado that leads fighter pilots to do some of the crazy things I've known them to do. But it's not rational.

McCain's safety depends not on his own fearless, but - since he's refused Secret service protection - the whim of any deranged person bent on doing him harm. Does he seriously think he's immune from this?

It's not only himself that he's risking. It affects a people deeply when a leader is injured or killed.

a continued tour of parts of the country not often visited by Republican candidates, like New Orleans and Appalachia, as a way of displaying McCain's maverick character

How sad is it when a Republican simply showing his face in New Orleans qualifies him as a 'maverick'. Is the R' base really THAT far removed from the rest of the planet?

Michael--

You might have missed in the comments associated with your last posting.

How did Chuck Todd project IL-14, Hastert's district? The RNCC defended it heavily, and still lost by a significant margin.

John McCain is confident he has earned a pass.

This is the press's motto for McCain's campaign. If anything remotely negative is said about the man and his life, the reporter is careful to assure us that McCain has earned a pass.

Michael:
Are you going to point out that McSame voted against the MLK Jr. holiday? Are you going to ask him if he feels any kinship with Newt Gingrich(since the both dumped wives just when the wives needed them most)?

Michael, you really ought to throw in an Oxford comma before "box of bullets".

This is George Bush, Jr. deja vu all over again. Even Scherer can see that the same ingredients are on the can. Are American voters such idiots that they are going to buy the same crap again.

What America learned about GWB was what close observers of candidate Bush already knew. There was no miraculous transformation of the reckless punk into the wise leader. President Bush immediately launched a reckless and ruinous war.

What will bad boy McCain launch when he gets into office? A nuclear confrontation? The heavy hand of Scherer's self-censorship is evident in his failure to break out of the story line fed to him by the McCain campaign. He refuses to look for evidence of continued bad boy behavior after McCain's return from Vietnam. This evidence is plentiful, but Mr. Scherer is strangely uninterested in presenting it.

Aw, gee. Boys will be boys, sowing their wild oats and whatnot.

These anecdotes just prove what a Real Man and Regular Guy McCain is.

But if, say, Obama did any of this: Oh my god!!! He's an oversexualized black man! If he gets elected, he's going to rape all our pure white wives!

Michael, something you didn't mention (and McCain doesn't mention): he finished 894th out of 899 in the Naval Academy. Makes George Bush's academic record look stellar.

Source:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NmIzNDU0YmQ1M2JkY2VkYjc4OWQ4YmZhOTk5ODllMGE=

Enceladus - That's the exact, sad point.

McCain's revealing this if only because he knows it'll be seen as character building stuff, for several reasons:

1) He's military. It's just one of things guys in the service do, it's hardly anything to be upset about, ya know?!

2) He's Republican. And you know that Republicans are fine, upstanding, moral people, and thus little abberations like this are just that: abberations. Not disturbing evidence of extreme character flaws like Democrats show when they do the exact same stuff.

3) He's McCain. He's earned a pass. Who's going to make a big deal about something like this, when he's already shown himself to be knowledgable and level-headed?

What a charming, indulgent piece, Michael.

McCain campaign getting out ahead of examination of his early years with the indulgent cooperation of his biggest fan base, the DC press.

McCain: Loving His Misspent Youth, and the DC Press: Loving Him for Loving It. How cute.

What James, Los Angeles (and others) said.

The Globe has noticed that McCain is still dithering on campaign finance.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/04/04/mccain_returns_3m_in_checks_as_he_considers_public_funding/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+National+news

Sending money back he has illegally collected.

Hum. I'll bet Michael, one of McCain's biggest fans, isn't going to write about Mr. Campaign Finance Reform finally dealing with his criminal violation of campaign finance laws. 38,000 people filed a complaint with the FEC, and it appears that the effort wasn't lost.

McCain Finance Maneuvers: Shamed Into It?

Kudos to Jane Hamsher from FDL and Glenzilla for spearheading this effort. People who only read Time.com will be at a loss about this issue, since none of McCain's adoring fans have touched this issue with a ten-foot pole. Fortunately, you can all catch up at the link above to FDL.

Well it isn't stellar, but seems like typical young guy behavior.

Anyone interested in politics/presidential race should definitely check out http://www.savagepolitics.com
Their articles are like nothing I have read in any of the current media outlets. It is brilliant writing plus it offers a great community in which to discuss. The editor actually takes time to answer and the political humor section is awesome!!!

Michael, that was just dreadful. Please read Bob Somerby entries from this week to get a little perspective. www.dailyhowler.com

On another point, I don't know why going to New Orleans is such a big deal for a Republican now. The Bush incompetence after the breeching of the levees (wonder why Karl Rove was immediately put in charge), continuing until today has turned LA from a questionable state to a reliably red state. Move the majority of the population of the city out of it and make it difficult to impossible for them to return. Not to mention LA just elected that rising Republican star Bobby Jindahl as governor. He has even been mentioned as a possible VP choice for McCain. Once again the brave McCain takes a risk.

Charming and indulgent twaddle.

And let me add this Digby link for some more perspective on Bad Boy John:

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/04/courting-cavaliers-by-digby-ed-kilgore.html

Check out Digby on "the relationship between St. McCain and his Hannah Montana fanboys":

http://digbysblog.blogspot.com/2008/03/cosmological-flyboy-by-digby-neal.html

What a steaming pile of caca.

McCain is doing a preemptive strike on his past, couching it in his own terms and the MSM will swallow the whole "boys will be boys" schtick completely.

Maverick John, what a card.

Of course, John McCain deserves a pass over his youthful indiscretions.

But, so do other politicians.

When it's Obama, we witch hunt into whether he expressed a desire to be president in kindergarten, his drug use decades ago, etc.

Getting back to sex, it seems that there is a pattern here...

Democratic males are punished for all heterosexual indiscretions - Bill Clinton, Eliott Spitzer, David Patterson, etc. But the media yawns when republican males do the exact same thing: David Vitter, for example. And the media give McCain on the circumstances of his divorce and re-marriage that they would give to no other Democrat. Even someone with a personal life as wild a Guilliani was annointed media frontrunner for most of 2007...something they would have never done with a dem with the exact same personal life.

The only time the media will apply the "Democratic Sex Rules" to Republicans is if they are caught in a men's room or poaching on underage congressional pages. But anything less than that gets a media pass.

And Obama being a Black democrat there is an added level of double standard because of people's screwed up notions of black sexuality. Remember what they did to harold Ford in 2006 with that ad with a white woman saying, "Harold, call me."

The fact of the matter is that Obama has to be 100% asexual family man and if he were to have even the slightest deviation from that, the media and the republicans would paint Obama as a hypersexual black man.

In anycase, John McCain has no reason to visit Strip Clubs anymore.

I hear he travels with a bus full of groupies known as the "mainstream" media.

Instead of press passes, maybe these reporters should be issued garter belts?

Obama freely admitted to past marijuana and cocaine use. It wasn't long ago that no politician in America would dare admit to something like this. Yet somehow, McCain's admissions are significant, worthy of a glowing story about his honesty, if only because it was McCain who made the admission. (and yeah, I Scherer mentioned this fact about Obama in the piece)

He doesn't need a pass to admit to something like this. Ke-rist, the male dominated GOP probably loves stories like this...probably makes them like him even more. Dude dated a knife carrying stripper - what a man! He was a party fool back in college. Yee-hah! He was banging a fashion model in Rio. You da man!

But if you happened to attend a church where the pastor spoke about the very real and valid theory of blowback in a sermon about not responding to violence with violence because violence begets violence, you're un-American and must eliminate the vile stain of a person from your life completely. And heaven forbid your wife proclaim - as Americans of all races, classes, and ideologies are coming out to support your black husband for president - that you are more proud of your country than you've ever been in your adult life. (as any spouse of a candidate would feel, if he/she truly believed in that spouse, as most do) Traitor!

Scherer - Who cares about his misspent youth? I want to hear about his promise to bring us 4-8 more years of Bush and why that is exactly what America does NOT want or need at this point. And how about pointing out that the only thing the guy can run on is biography - because he really doesn't have much else, which becomes evident every time he speaks in any sort of detail about things like Iraq and the economy.

Is it just me or is the article Michael so proudly points us to read like it was co-written by a staffer of McCain's? And can anyone tell me why it was even written? Seems to me like it something that belongs in the lifestyle section of the local paper.

Oh, great. President Tailhook.

To continue my point - I can think of at least 5 or 6 males friends who are not particularly political or partisan and who would be MORE likely to vote for McCain after reading a story like this. Partying and having sex with hot chicks when you were younger is in no way a "bad thing" for a white, male politician in American society. Unless, of course, you're a Democrat...then that kind of behavior will give our establishment media the vapors.

WTF? Drunken carousing is "military?" Yes, it's military if you never intend to rise to a high leadership position. You think Wesley Clark, first in his class at West Point, was a drunken carouser? You think General Norman Schwartzkopf was a drunken carouser? You think Jimmy Carter, selected for the elite nuclear submarine force, was a drunken carouser? The notion that military men are expected to be drunken carousers is total bull$hit engineered to make McCain into someone Joe Sixpack would vote for.

It is absolutely infuriating to have to do Michael Scherer's job for him, but this is where we are. Attention, Mr. Sherer! Please direct your attention to the interval in McCain's career in which he was made squadron commander of a major training unit in Florida (1974-1976). This was his chance to rise to high rank in the Navy. Please check for evidence of rule infractions, extramarital affairs, and improper fraternization with subordinates.

If McCain was seen to be acting as a "bad boy" while squadron commander, this would completely explode the story line of his miraculous transformation into a responsible leader during his POW captivity.

Just do your job as a journalist, so we don't have to do it for you, Mr. Scherer.

FlownOver, "Oh, great. President Tailhook."

I wonder if Michael evens remembers Tailhook and the fact that women were harrassed and embarassed by this type of conduct that he thinks is cute or that officers in both the Navy and Marine Corps were fired over it or how much of an embarassment it was for the Naval Service?

If he did maybe he could have included reference to it in his article and been able to at least have some justification for writing it in the first place.

When Mr. Scherer gets done with investigating McCain's squadron commander days, he can fast forward to the US Senate, where McCain has cursed out other senators to their faces. McCain is fundamentally the same loose cannon today that he was as an undergraduate at Annapolis. He is impulsive, belligerent and self-righteous. Nothing has changed except that he is now a candidate for President of the United States.

God help us if this deeply flawed man is ever given the power of life and death over millions of people.

HH, brilliant post.

From now on, I'm going to refer to McCain as "Drunken Carouser" everytime I see him called "Maverick".

In fact, I hearby banish the word "Maverick" from Time.com. No one may use that term unless their first name is Bret, Bart, Brent or Beau.

HH

You forget that he was a pilot.

For some reason party time is part of the job description.

HH,

Funny, I had the same thought about McCain today: can we really trust this guy to have the power of life and death over millions of people....but I got to that concern because he has been talking lately as if he has some sort of bizarre death wish...

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/4/4/74716/74415/326/489870

You know, if McCain were a democrat, people would be asking right now if the reason McCain mixed up Iran and Iraq was because he has neurosyphilis back from his days of dating strippers.

I really couldn't care less about McCain having dated a stripper decades ago, and I think the reason the lobbyist story died out so quickly is that the NY Times had no real evidence. But this does show the double standard that both Obama and Hillary Clinton face in this election. I happened to be watching Leno when I saw a debate sketch he did, and I was absolutely disgusted by how racist and sexist it was. Obama was portrayed as stupid and lecherous, and Clinton was portrayed as emasculating and sexless. Interestingly, the show is produced by a Republican.

The MSM would not find it cute if either Obama or Hillary Clinton had McCain's past. In Obama's case, they would find it terrifying. And in Clinton's case, they would have absolute contempt for her.

KathyR, good point about the Secret Service. He seems to not be getting the point of Secret Service protection: it's more about protecting the country than the individual politician.

McCain's "bad boy" carousing as a flyboy reminds me of another celebrated pilot with the same, uh, je ne sais quoi, by the name of Randy "Duke" Cunningham. Didn't ole prison inmate "Duke" (now in the "Duke Stir" haw haw haw) have his DC fanboys in the press as well?

>>You forget that he was a pilot.

For some reason party time is part of the job description.

McCain is what is referred to as a "reverse ace," having lost five of his own aircraft. There are no good explanations for some of those incidents. He would have been washed out had his father not been an admiral.

The resemblance to Bush Jr. is more and more uncanny the closer you look. Americans, having seen how a rebellious wild-ass performs in the Presidency, seem eager to elect another one, and the press is happy to oblige.

Are we a nation of such fools that we can find no better candidate than John McCain? What makes surviving a POW ordeal a qualification for the Presidency? What makes hell-raising a positive character trait? What makes supporting a deeply unpopular war a good campaign tactic?

WFT is wrong with this country?

You're f---ing with me here, Scherer, I know you are.
Not only is this NOT answers to questions that get asked EVERY SINGLE TIME you post, this is the OPPOSITE of answers. This is more mythologizing, more "John McCain is an awesome dude" BS.

You're f---ing with me here, Scherer, I know you are.

Scherer is too busy to ask McCain the questions he asked us to submit, but he is not too busy to distribute the McCain drunken carouser story, as though it were written by the McCain campaign.

Mr. Scherer:

Have you asked candidate McCain how long he believes US troops should continue fighting in Iraq?

If not, why not?

As long as were posing questions for Scherer not to ask McCain, how about this one:

"Mr. McCain, how did you qualify for the Ohio primary ballot?"

The answer is, he qualified by accepting public funding for his primary campaign.

So then the question becomes:

"Mr. McCain, why are you not abiding by the spending limits you agreed to by accepting public financing for your primary campaign?"

Violations are punishable by up to 5 years imprisonment. Yet no one has asked these questions.

My, that's tasty barbeque.

Too busy, my ass.

I think Scherer got angry at our implications that he is a poor journalist, and retaliated with more pro-McCain propaganda.

Kathy and Rose, absolutely. The Secret Service is there to protect American society just as much as it is there to guard the candidates and their families.

Assination has a horrible effect upon the country and there is always the possibility chaos could ensure (I will always remember the "I'm in charge here" scuffle after Reagan was shot. God knows what Cheny would do if he actually ever got overt authority as president).

Oh, and HH - I really like the "reverse ace."

I think Scherer got angry at our implications that he is a poor journalist

A "journalist" would see an opportunity in checking and challenging the McCain campaign story line, which is:

Chapter 1. Reckless youth

Chapter 2. Transformative POW ordeal

Chapter 3. Shining rise as a national leader

Any journalist discovering reckless and/or disreputable behavior in Chapter 3 blows up the McCain campaign story. It appears that Mr. Scherer is unwilling to do this.

Rose and Southern Bell:

McCain has agreed to Secret Service protection today. Apparently yesterdy someone from the Secret Service testified on the Hill , and said McCain wasn't getting the protection. I gather there's concern now that that's too widely known. (though I'm sure I read about his not having the Service somewhere last week).

Ralph--

If you look at the link to the Globe article above, you'll see that he is returning checks and seems to be committing to public financing. this, of course, makes two huge NYT fundraising pieces by Michael Cooper (McC BBQ) irrelevant.

In other news, he apparently did a terrible job in Memphis and was booed and heckled.

Speculation in my inbox suggests that he'll have to adopt a Bush Bubble vetting mechanism for his public events. But counter-speculation notes that this will destroy the Straight Talk narrative--as with Ana's claim that he always takes heckler questions first.

I do hope he comes to my home town....

Posted without comment :

Time managing editor Richard Stengel says: "My whole view was there's more information out there than any time in human history. What people don't need more of is information. They need a guide through the chaos."

No, really.
(Guffaw!)

"Any journalist discovering reckless and/or disreputable behavior in Chapter 3 blows up the McCain campaign story. It appears that Mr. Scherer is unwilling to do this. "

The thing is, we KNOW that there is disreputable behavior in Chapter 3. Why is Scherer unwilling to do this? Can he really be that bad of a journalist? I can't see how. I, a random internet buffoon, am able to come up with questions concerning McCain's ability to lead this country that Scherer has NOT ONCE ADDRESSED. Not that I've seen.

This isn't my job, it's not my profession, it's a hobby that I've taken up recently.

So it's insulting that Scherer, a PROFESSIONAL JOURNALIST, so blatantly refuses to address ANYTHING that doesn't have to do with what an awesome dude McCain is.

questions concerning McCain's ability to lead this country that Scherer has NOT ONCE ADDRESSED

Yup. And this is the point at which Scherer calls us "conspiracy theorists" because we think Time Magazine consistently avoids unflattering treatment of McCain. For God's sake, how much more obvious does a situation have to be? Scherer has continuous access to this blog via his crackberry, so he could address our questions at any time. All we hear are crickets chirping. If Stengel's monkeys ever rename Swampland, I doubt that they will call it "Straight Talk."

Thanks for the heads up Kathy.

And Jay, thanks for the boos/hiss report.

Meh. This reads like it was intended for those of us who had the misfortune of not being able to attend one of McCain's 'biography tour' events...Very little here that I couldn't find out on Wikipedia, for instance.

What would be interesting is a look at the last part of the 'redemption tale': the aftermath, which is usually pretty fuzzy...I mean, did the redemption actually take or was it less than permanent?

Wait wait. Scherer used to *be* a pretty good journo. You can check his stuff on Mother Jones and Salon.com. It's not that he doesn't *know.* That's one reason why I am particularly disappointed in his work here. He apparently has chosen to sacrifice that for jumping into the Big Time.

Apparently Time.com doesn't *do* information, it's about leading us rubes through the chaos.

This is why Hillary needs to stop being such a selfish a hole and drop out so we can defeat McBush - this is the last thing we need, another 1000 years in Iraq. McCain may be one of the most decent repugs (if there is such a thing) but he is still a repug and must be stopped. If you disagree you are clearly a troll.

From flaming strippers to flaming heiresses. Quite an american journey of me(libido), self(hedonism) and only me(pass to presidency).

Sen McCain would 'pass' as a man of integrity and accountability. So why is he seeking a pass from public censure if warranted?

Do we all have to join the military to earn our pass? In McCain's world, coarse and licentious Bill Clinton would have faired better in his presidency if he had not run off to UK instead of joining our military in Nam.

Is military service supposed to be some kind of penitence in lieu of joining a monastery?

The rest of us just go to church and pray for forgiveness from past misdeeds (and thereby shed any past guilt - so that we may sin afresh). Maybe Sen McCain should ask his buddy Pastor Hagee to pray for him - if and only if he (Sen MC) is NOT Catholic.

"Wait wait. Scherer used to *be* a pretty good journo. You can check his stuff on Mother Jones and Salon.com. It's not that he doesn't *know.*"

I do remember that coming up before, that he's done some actual good stuff.
So what happened, then? Is Sean Hannity holding members of his family hostage? Is Stengel beating him with a rubber hose every time he doesn't post about McCain's awesome ironic stance towards the press?

Cliff - it is proximity to the one we call in pig latin (oke-j lein-k) that is michaels problem. If he reads our commentary and takes it to heart and learns the things that we commenters can teach him, then Michael will overcome.

I don't think McCain should be stopped, Stewie Z, and I am not a troll.

I'm voting for McCain because he is clearly the guy I'd rather go with to the nudie bar!

jayackroyd -

If I am not mistaken, the money McCain is returning is meant for the *general* election. He's figured out that he can't match the fundraising either Democrat might acheive for the November contest.

But it's his spending on the *primary* that is in violation of the FEC rules on public financing that he initially agreed to.

Time4Ignorance - your blatant sexism and use of women as objects is shameful but not surprising at all as you are clearly a part of the vast right wing conspiracy. You need to take some sensitivity courses and try to understand that women are people with feelings who deserve your respect, not your one dollar bills at the nudie bar. Obama would not be caught dead in a place like that and that is another reason (among the hundreds of reasons) why you should see the light and support Obama!

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/04/mccain-in-memphis/

The NYTimes has video of the speech.

"anyone seen my bag of blow"????

That is my Obama impersonation for you folks!!

Rustydog is a racist. Shame on you! You are the people that Reverend Wright speaks of. How are you going to deal when President Obama is your leader in a few blessed months? How will you deal?

What a terrible column! A good column could have been about Senator McCain's failure to sponsor the GI Bill, or even to know anything about it. That's a real issue which, like, actually affects people's lives today. Or, maybe, a column on Yoo Prime and Yoo2, which, of course, has completely destroyed America's moral standing.

Well, until Hillary stops distracting our press with her baseless attacks on Obama we will not be able to get the press to do it's job and expose McLame for the Bush that he is. This is why Hillary must...quit....now.

Calm down now. I have been on a plane, stuck in southern thunderstorms. (Am stuck at ATL now.) How could I foresake you all, my commenters, my Greek chorus, the voices from my nightmares? I'm not messing with you. I am not ignoring you. I am not retaliating, Cliff. I have not changed the way I do my job, James.

But here is the thing, if we are going to have an extended conversation about McCain and Clinton and Obama, and whether or not I suck, and whether or not there is any hope for corporate media, you are going to have to allow that I will not always promptly reply in these threads. I am not always online. I am not always free. (Sometimes, I just don't want to respond.)

And we should clarify our expectations. I am not going to always write stories that have the edge you all want me to have. The reason is simple: There are a lot of other stories that I think are interesting and worth telling that have nothing to do with the sort of stuff you want to see. I think it is valuable, for instance, to know that a presidential candidate not only has a well documented, misspent childhood like McCain, but that he is using it as evidence of his own virtue.

Now, I understand that you will be unhappy with my choices sometimes, and that is okay. We don't always have to agree. We just have to keep listening to each other.

I was with McCain for two days, Wed. and Thu., during which he did not hold a press avail or gaggle. I did not get to ask him any questions directly. Most of the questions that you want asked concern his specific plans for Iraq. I agree completely that more answers are needed here, not only from McCain but from Obama and Clinton. I am pursuing this. I am pursuing some of the other topics that have been raised as well. But I don't want to get into the habit of telling too much about my plans in a public forum, so you will have to wait to be pleased or disappointed.

As for whether I have changed from my glory days with the left-leaning press, here is what I would say. In my mind I have no doubt that I have not. I am still trying to write what is happening, to find out things the public does not know, and to make the Democratic process seem as fascinating to my readers as it seems to me. You can contact my old editors at Mother Jones, or Salon, or the Nation, where I have freelanced, and they will tell you that this is how I approached my job. I never made it a goal to fight for one party or political ideology. And I am not doing that here. I am doing the same job I have always done. Now that is just my view, but I am hoping that by the end of this cycle, you folks at least take me at my word.

I am trying to figure out the balance of how transparent to be on this blog about my work, my plans and other things. But let me begin with this insight: The popular impression that reporters always have constant access to McCain to ask whatever they want is not accurate. (Also inaccurate: The popular view that reporters covering McCain are unwilling to ask him challenging questions, or do stories that will upset the campaign.) He has traditionally been far more open than anyone else, but right now he is campaigning in a more traditional mode. Nothing outrageous about it. But is not as simple as you sending me a question and me nailing McCain down with the question. And this has nothing to do with McCain avoiding me or the question, or me not wanting to ask it. That is just the way the game works. So hang in there all.

You won't like everything I do. But I am still hopeful that you will find much to appreciate as well.

m.

Overheard in line at the Piggly Wiggly:

"Hey yall, did ya read that piece at Time by Michael Scherer about John McCain? Wow! What a maverick! He spent his pay at Trader Jons! A strip club! He's a regular guy's guy! John McCain sure seems like the kind of guy I'd like to have a beer with some time, and you just know if your car had a flat, he'd pull over to help you. He was just a regular guy, not some hoidy toidy latte liberal who thinks he's smarter than me, McCain got bad grades....just like me! I'll never forgive John Kerry for wind surfing because that's what elitists do! I'm voting for John McCain!"

MS, overheard at the latest McCain BBQ:
"Did I ever tell you about the time McCain went hunting? McCain decides he's going to hunt down all four of the Banana Splits. He stalks and kills every one of them with a machette. They all begged for their lives...except Fleagle!"

"John McCain once punched a hole in a cow just to see who was coming up the road!"

"We once had a bachelor party for John McCain. He ate the entire cake before we could tell him there was a stripper in it!"

"One time I was with McCain in the back of a pickup truck, along with a live deer. McCain goes up to the deer and says, 'I'm John McCain! SAY IT!' Then he manipulates the deer's lips in such a way as to make it say, 'johnmccain' ... It wasn't exactly like it, but it was pretty good for a deer!'"

"John McCain is two ton man-mountain who can palm a medicine ball!"

""Maverick drank a full glass of liquid LSD with his eggs. Then he slept for 8 months straight. When he woke he rubbed his eyes and said, 'All in all, I prefer gin!'"

Well, anyway.. he shows up at the church in his golf pants, caked in mud. Well, ol' John McCain pushes the priest aside and says, "I'll baptize that piece of calimari!" Then he pours Scotch all over my baby son and says, "There! You're baptized!"

right now he is campaigning in a more traditional mode. Nothing outrageous about it. But is not as simple as you sending me a question and me nailing McCain down with the question.

How long do you think it is reasonable for you not to ask McCain the questions we have forwarded to you? Another week? a month? until after the convention?

McCain has asserted that his character changed dramatically as a result of his POW captivity. Do you have any interest in confirming or disconfirming this assertion?

Your coverage of McCain to date has been bland and unimaginative. When are you going to step up and tell us something we don't already know?

Michael - part of your job is to make sure that the candidates hear what we have to say because we are the engines that drive the democratic party and we will give you the tools with our questions to help us defeat Bush III and save America! Some of us are more helpful than others but I leave it to you to discern who the patriots are.

You know, Michael.

I don't think you can find anywhere that I have asked you to "fight for one party or political ideology." It's more about actually reporting newsworthy items about how the candidates propose, or can be expected, to govern if they are elected to the highest office in the land.

I don't think an indulgent reverie about misspent youth is very informative unless you spend some reporting effort on the story, as detailed by HH and others here. As it is written it reads just like a press release out of the McCain campaign. Look at me! I was a Bad Boy! I once was lost but now I'm found! When all available evidence points otherwise.

We have already had eight years with a reckless, volatile alcoholic, and for the same reasons that are happening here: fanboys like you swooning over the image without looking to see if there is anything else there. I don't have any illusions that you'll actually ask any of those actually very important questions. I hope I'm wrong.

I do appreciate that you respond to what is becoming, I guess, almost relentless criticism. I'd wish you'd write something that didn't warrant it.

In terms of McCain's character, I think his answer or position on the MLK holiday deserves further scrutiny. This may be old news to some, but many voters myself included are just now learning that McCain voted against an MLK holiday. The fact that he positioned against it for many years after his initial vote is especially troubling to many of us, I believe.

Steve Benen has the background:
http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/15107.html

The [1983 House vote against an MLK holiday] wasn’t the only problem. In his home state of Arizona, conservatives in the state legislature blocked a measure to create a holiday honoring King, prompting then-Gov. Bruce Babbitt (D) to declare one through executive order.

In 1987, Republican Gov. Evan Mecham’s first act in office was to rescind Babbitt’s order on the King holiday. John McCain endorsed Mecham’s decision.

Complicating matters, McCain, no doubt embarrassed by his previous positions, is being less than truthful about them now.

Yesterday, for example, he was pressed on his record by reporters.

“I voted in my … first year in Congress against it and then I began to learn and I studied and people talked to me. And I not only supported it but I fought very hard in my home state of Arizona for recognition against a governor who was of my own party,” McCain said during a media availability aboard his plane Monday.

If McCain “began to learn” and “studied” after his opposition to the King holiday in ‘83, he was a very slow learner. Four years later, he didn’t fight against a governor or his own party; he endorsed the governor’s move to eliminate a King holiday.

Six years after his House vote he began supporting a state holiday, but still opposed a federal King holiday. Eleven years after his vote, he tried to strip federal funding from the MLK Federal Holiday Commission. Seventeen years after his vote, McCain publicly endorsed South Carolina’s right to fly the confederate flag over its statehouse.

HH, you may be the exception. I doubt there is anything I will be able to do to make you think I am not lord Moloch incarnate. You often (but not always) ask questions not for information but as a cudgel. You think the worst of me by default. You seem to equate good journalism with opposition research and propaganda. Do you really think I was suggesting a month, or after the convention? So I will simply apologize to you in advance to you for everything I plan to do.

I doubt there is anything I will be able to do to make you think I am not lord Moloch incarnate.

Things Michael Scherer can do to prove he is not a minion of Moloch (Moloch incarnate is Richard Stengel):

1. Briefly explain what the public responsibilities of a political journalist are.

2. Adopt a challenging and skeptical posture toward politicians and their campaign operatives. (This can be learned through observation of the British press).

3. Provide clear responses to non-controversial questions asked of you by readers on these blog threads. (EXAMPLE: When are you going to ask McCain how long he intends to keep fighting in Iraq?)

4. Understand that challenging a candidate's statements and positions is not "opposition research and propaganda"

5. Demonstrate that a good journalist tells the public something that they do not already know.

And just because these are my first two posts, does anyone know what the party line here at Swampland is about McCain's Iran-al Queda "gaffe?"

Do the Cox's, Klein's, et al of this blog all feel the same? That is was a gaffe, and not deceitful? Has anyone written about AMC's theory, which she hinted at in the video Greenwald, that McCain was inadvertently stating in public some newly discovered, maybe not yet fully vetted, intelligence that does indicate Iran is dealing with al Queda in Iraq elements? I know that theory is unlikely, but there is this notion that intelligence and secret ops forces are always working with the devil, and, who knows, this may apply to Iranian secret ops forces, as well. And if there were what amounts to intelligence rumors that McCain and Lieberman were privy to, McCainn may have succumbed to a temptation to use it.

Of course, what that theory also overlooks is that Bush's Iraq lies about Iraq and al Queda were also full of weak intelligence "rumors" So even if McCain was not making up Iran-al Queda links whole cloth, it is still thinkable that McCain's statements about such links are attempts at manipulating the public, ala Bush.

Last question to help me get up to speed on how Swampland deals with McCain. Does anyone in Swampland place McCain's "robust foreign policy" in the context of the public lies and manipulations that are often needed to start a foreign war, again ala Bush's shameful manipulation of intelligence to ensure the Iraq War were started? Does anyone at Swampland espouse the notion, which so many of us hold, that Bush lied and deliberately manipulated pre-War intelligence? Does anyone even accept the notion that the media failed the public in adequately questioning, and often times shamefully cheerleading, the administrations pre-War claims?

I would be really grateful if anyone can take the time to help me understand the backgrounds and world views of Swampland posters. I know I have a lot of assumptions in my questions, so if anyone is willing to try to tease out some useful discussion I would be very open to corrections and much obliged. Thanks!

To be clear, by Swampland posters I only refer to Ana Marie Cox, Joe Klein, Karen Tumulty, Jay Carney, Jay Newton-Small, and Michael Scherer. I do not refer to commenters. Thanks.

Michael, I will put it this way, even if it kind of ignores the length you went to in order to post that long response to us.

I'd rather you respond to us by doing valid journalism and commentary than simply deigning to step into the gaggle and respond directly. Mostly because what it takes for you to step in to comment here is usually some sort of personal affront.

Most of us here don't have a problem with the subject of the article in general. It's the fact that it's one in another line of adulatory 'see that McCain, boy I'd love to have ribs with him!' puff pieces that you'd never see a Democrat get. If a Democrat admitted to half of this, he'd be crucified by the punditry and op-eds, instead of lionized like McCain is.

Consistency and objectivity. That's what we're asking, and your piece just happens to be just one of many which gives us the exact opposite when it comes to the candidates we have.

Scherer:
Thanks for responding to us, and for clarifying your position and methods a little.

I know McCain probably won't answer a good deal of those questions, assuming that you get a chance to ask them in the first place. I would like to see a broader acknowledgement that these questions exist.
It would also be nice to know which of our questions fall into what categories: already answered (if so, where the answers are), good questions, or purely combatitive.

Sorry about getting on your case so much, I've been grouchy lately, and I didn't realize you were dealing with the weather.

And also - yeah, there's probably not anything you can do to make HH happy.

alcatholic, the answer to all your questions is no. As far as Swamplander's world views...that's a pretty tall order. However, I think this pretty much sums up Joe Klein's world view.

Joe Klein: The Democrats are tone deaf when they don't cave to the Republicans. It's too bad the Democrats don't stand up to the Republicans more often, perhaps this damage could have been prevented. The Democrats are tone deaf when they don't cave to the Republicans. The American left is reflexively anti-military and anti-war and their opposition to the Iraq invasion, and their claims of impending disaster, are un-serious and not based in fact. The Iraq War is a disaster, it's too bad no one saw it coming, at least someone who isn't reflexively anti-military and anti-war.

there's probably not anything you can do to make HH happy.

I don't want Mr. Scherer to make me happy. That is not his job. I want him to do his job, which is political journalism. I want him to be an intelligent and energetic advocate of the INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. I want him to get the information that will allow the electorate to cast informed votes. Relaying campaign propaganda is not political journalism; it is message distribution.

Keep up the great job Michael. Every post about McCain is a post that will enlighten anyone that passes by this swamp.

I for one appreciate your prose, and I am not pandering, brown nosing or any other adjective you can heap on this dung pile for the lefty-leftists.

I just wish we had more Obama "stories" to discuss, as the great Democratic "Messiah" has so far flown well below the radar of sane, moderate America.

One comment to me to go and look at Obama and his so called plan, directed me to his web site which was utterly full of BULLC&ap, speculation and pure non-sense. It is no more a "plan" to get out of Iraq, than my next grocery shopping list would make sense as a plan to vacate that God forsaken desert.

I hope you can be fair and balanced with both parties attempts at being the next President of the US of A.

alcatholic - our worldwiew is that of the modern American liberal who on a daily basis bemoans the ruination of America due to the blatant stealing of the 2000 election from Al Gore and all the resultant disasters under Bush. We are determined not to let McBush continue this trend. Our voices are heard by important people daily who frequent this blog to learn what educated literate Americans like us think about the political process. Operatives from all the campaigns come here to see what we are thinking. Some of us here are extremely poignant and our views are seen to represent mainstream American thought in 2008. We respect what our allies in the press have done to help our cause but have to occasionally take corrective action when one of the sheep strays (like on this thread). That is our worldview. If you don't like it go find a conservative blog but I promise you it will not have the important stories that make a difference like the ones here written by journalists who are felt by people in power to be very important players, and the importance of the bloggers in the grand scheme of things is only sharpened and augmented by the craftsmanship and high intelligence of what most of the commenters (particularly the regulars like stuart_zechman, JJ, acidJ, Paul Dirks, Elvis, and HH) have to say. People that matter listen to what these commenters have to say. They really do. The rest of us merely are just happy to be here and to be at least peripherally part of something that has such a meaningful impact in American politics.

You are welcome.

As an example of the double standard (folks keeping up in blogland will understand): McCain as Fonzie/Tyler Durden/Buck Turgidson -- cool!

Vs. "I smelled cigarette smoke on Obama. Eek!"

Michael:

Thanks for the heartfelt posts. We must indeed be misery-making, and I apologize for that.

Still, I gotta say, you walk into the lion's den each time you publish stuff that glorifies the Legend of Maverick (c). If you mixed it up a bit more, you might not be in for it as bad. For whatever reason, though, we are seeing consistent pieces that really could have been written by the McCain campaign. And the commenters here are right that the "negative" aspects of this story are actually "positives" for McCain -- and that the treatment of Bush by the press eight years ago is an apt parallel.

How about a serious piece about whether America really NEEDS another wise-ass fraternity brother as its leader? It may be fun on a bus trip, but -- Christ, man -- this country is falling apart right now, and "more of the same" is hardly gonna cut it.

How about a serious analysis of how/why McCain can turn around the perceptions of (now) a decided majority of Americans who feel the country is seriously off-track. Explain to us how a candidate endorsed by a President with a 30% approval rating as the heir to the throne represents a break with the past, and a new vision.

Anxiously awaiting that analysis,

vry trly yrs,

sfbear

YEah! What SF BEAR said!

LEt me help you Michael:

a primer:

McLame = Bush
Bush = Horrible for America and the world
Therefore, Mc Lame = Horrible for America and the world.

Obama = Awesome for America and the world.

That is the important angle to discuss for the upcoming election.

Trust me, adhering to this policy will endear you to us, the loyal minions of Time.

Bush=Horrible for America and the world

Excellent formulation, StewieZ. I knew you would understand eventually. Keep up the good work.

Stewie Z, how dare you insult President Bush?

He is our commander in chief. He bravely defended Texas from the evil doers in Oklahoma when he served in the Guard.

The constitution says we have to love him and vote for him and whoever shares his last name.

And how dare you say I don't respect women. When I bring home squirrel for dinner, my wife cooks it really good. The bible says men have their roles and women have theirs. But my pastor told me that God has made an exception for Ann Coulter who is doing His work here on earth.

But Stewie Z, I just want you to know that I pray for you. Because no matter how much I detest your views, I don't want you to burn in Hell because you voted for a Muslim.

gotta love the anti american posts here..Michael..will we see the same scrutiny of Obama..or the same liberal bias with everybody drooling over Obama and that he can do no wrong..Gotta laugh at everybody here sufferin from BDR ( Bush derangement syndrome)..I feel bad for the reporters on this blog as nothing will appease them unless they report that Bush and Cheney kill women and children and turned the switch on their secret hurricane making machine to cause hurricane Katrina. Michael, there is nothin you can say to make these hate filled posters respect you unless you say..impeach Bush and Cheney

Bush and Cheney kill women and children

Waging a war of aggression is the ultimate war crime, because it contains all the crimes of war within it. Tens of thousands of women and children have been killed under the orders of Bush and Cheney. If there is a Hell, Bush and Cheney will burn in it forever.

I don't want Mr. Scherer to make me happy. That is not his job. I want him to do his job, which is political journalism. I want him to be an intelligent and energetic advocate of the INTERESTS OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE.

No you just want him to spread more LIES, more leftist propaganda, more doom and gloom, more twisted half-truths of the facts, and MORE liberal EXTREMISM!!

I am convinced the liberal left has only ONE agenda. The goal is to rip American down the middle causing ANARCHY. For those who need a reminder of the meaning;
"Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."

jimmy - are you time4ignorance or rusty dog or are all of you really this dumb? You need to listen to HH as he is one of the smartest posters here short of stuart_zechman, and try to understand the magnitude of the war crimes committed and why our press is doing an excellent job in trying to bring the people of iraq and afghanistan the justice they deserve. I just hope that the repugs who supported their illegal war have the same fate as shrub and darth.

Here are Michael Scherer's Swampland posts and magazine stories from the last month:

-- McCain: Loving His Misspent Youth (campaign propaganda)
-- The Coming Electoral Map (horse race story)
-- Religious Right Still Putting Heat on McCain, Romney (political process story)
-- McCain Camp Calls Obama "Dishonest" UPDATED THRICE! (campaign propaganda)
-- “If I Only Had McCain” (frivolous)
-- Say It Ain't So, Joe (political process story, though I'll grant that it's issue-related)
-- The Deep New Voice of McCain’s Campaign (frivolous)
-- Five Things (mostly a horse race story, though there is a brief mention of the mortgage crisis)
-- Once a Senator, Never a Saint (actual substantive story)
-- McCain's Irony Effect (process story about the press love for McCain)
-- The Internet Effect on News (story about the media)
-- The Small Dollar Campaign Money Gulf (horse race story)
-- Slowly We Turn, Step By Step (horse race story)
-- McCain Aide Suspended Over Twitter (horse race story)
-- Two Million (about Obama's speech, doesn't really add much to the discussion)
-- This Reporter Does Not Endorse These Messages (frivolous)
-- Another Week, Another McCain Web Video (McCain propaganda)
-- McCain Campaign Returns To Solid Ground (horse race story, McCain propaganda)
-- McCain Campaign Walks A Fine Line On Obama Attacks (horse race story, apologetic for McCain)
-- Do Not Joke With The Political Press (frivolous)
-- The Phony Second-Degree Political Scandal (political process story)
-- This Race Is Not About Race / Ferraro Resigns From Clinton Campaign (frivolous; political process story)
-- Spitzer Out (unrelated to presidential race)
-- In Defense of Grizzly Bear DNA Pork (substantive story, although the substance comes from another reporter)
-- McCain Goes Back to The Future (political process story)
-- The Clinton Campaign's Awkward Electoral College Argument (horse race story)
-- What Huck-a-was (horse race story)
-- The Lord of War Arrested (substantive, but unrelated to the election)
-- Polling the Age of Hope (horse race story)
-- Get thee to Vegas, John McCain (horse race story)
-- Changing the Script (weak McCain propaganda)

As a voter, I find Scherer's output basically useless in figuring out where McCain stands on the issues or what a McCain presidency will mean for the country. We're entering a recession, but Scherer tells us nothing on McCain's stance on the economy. Nothing on financial bailouts of Wall St. firms or mortgage holders. Nothing on health care. Very little on Iraq (how long does McCain intend to keep fighting in Iraq?) Nothing on climate change. Very little on taxes or the federal budget. Nothing on McCain's stance towards Iran. Nothing on trade. Nothing on education.

If I were to rely on Scherer's reporting, I would be almost completely uninformed about McCain's policies. That's why I think he's doing a poor job as a reporter.

The goal is to rip American down the middle causing ANARCHY.

Karl Rove's 51% solution was aimed exactly at that. Rove's tactics included challenging the patriotism of those who opposed the war and using hate monger surrogates like Limbaugh and Coulter to spread villification of "liburls."

ANARCHY, of course, would justify strong man rule. An American Caesar would be needed to suspend our liberties and round up traitors and dissenters. Which party is more interested in giving the "commander in chief" unlimited power?

For nearly eight years, Bush and Cheney have waged an assault on the Constitution to enable an imperial Presidency. Rusty has been cheering them on because he would feel "safe" living in a dictatorship.

As a voter, I find Scherer's output basically useless in figuring out where McCain stands on the issues or what a McCain presidency will mean for the country. We're entering a recession, but Scherer tells us nothing on McCain's stance on the economy. Nothing on financial bailouts of Wall St. firms or mortgage holders. Nothing on health care. Very little on Iraq (how long does McCain intend to keep fighting in Iraq?) Nothing on climate change. Very little on taxes or the federal budget. Nothing on McCain's stance towards Iran. Nothing on trade. Nothing on education.

If I were to rely on Scherer's reporting, I would be almost completely uninformed about McCain's policies. That's why I think he's doing a poor job as a reporter.

This is an excellent summary of the problem with Scherer's writing. He has yet to provide a compelling explanation for this pattern of largely superficial coverage. Because Mr. Scherer is obviously an intelligent, well-educated, and articulate writer, it is reasonable to suspect that that he is avoiding more substantive issues by choice. I would like to know why.

"And we should clarify our expectations. I am not going to always write stories that have the edge you all want me to have. The reason is simple: There are a lot of other stories that I think are interesting and worth telling that have nothing to do with the sort of stuff you want to see."

Michael, that's fair. But the problem is that the MSM in general has a lot more edge when talking about Democrats than Republicans. In fact, there are really two separate problems with the MSM: they don't focus enough on issues and they have different standards for different candidates. I personally think that the latter problem is the most damaging, although as a Clinton supporter I probably have a different perspective on this. And I love process stories so I'm certainly not going to ask you to stop writing them. But it is clear that by largely ignoring the issues the MSM helps the Republicans get away basically ignoring the most serious problems that America faces (e.g. the economy, climate change, rapidly expanding executive powers, etc.).

Also, since we know that McCain will running against a woman or an African-American (or both) in November, your article would have been much richer and more interesting if you had addressed the double standard McCain's opponent will face in the general election. I understand that you can't talk about the double standard yourself - you're not an opinion writer - but couldn't you have asked some sociologists or political scientists to comment on it?

And to be very clear, I'm not just asking you and the MSM to be tougher on the Republicans; the Democrats are also getting away with too much. Clinton's support from health care companies and Obama's avoidance of the Kyl-Lieberman vote both deserve to be scrutinized. But because the media has such unequal standards for the different candidates, the Democrats in general and Clinton in particular would benefit from higher quality media coverage.

We dont need another rich, spoiled, delinquent idiot or military brat.

Michael, what I don't like about your article is that it pretty much is just a regurgitation of what the McCain campaign is offering up as his biography. So I don't see it as a story that you have written. Every public person who writes their own biography uses it as a way to whitewash themselves, so if you want to write your own story about McCain's biography you'd have to write in the parts which the campaign is keeping out to fill in the colors the from the horse's mouth version paints over. So I don't see any sort of your own story telling here.

Every time I listen to Ed Schultz on the radio he says that McCain isn't a very good candidate and that he is going to get creamed and I agree with him. This whole story about being redeemed from his misspent young adulthood gets contradicted by the fact that he is well reknowned for having a hot temper. Adults redeemed from wild young adulthoods have gained control of their emotional outbursts. The narrative isn't going to connect this time like it did for Bush because it rings so hollow.

I remember watching some kind of international forum on CNN that McCain was at which was held right about after the Abu Grahib story broke and the international community was having its complaints about it and McCain kept sputtering about how, "But we police our own," but then he got pretty pissed off because no one was agreeing with him and he started pouting to the point that someone in the forum actually said something to the effect "Getting angry about it isn't going to help it any." So my own personal experience of seeing the McCain temper in action give me the impression that he hasn't grown up.

Have you ever seen McCain get angry and did it give you the impression that it was a childish tantrum? And if you have, or have heard other people tell stories about it that made you think it was, then wouldn't this be a story that the campaign has whitewashed about from the biography? Ed Schultz also said that McCain has publically admitted that he has sought help for his temper, which I'm afraid already has shot this "I'm redeemed" narrative right out of the sky if it is true.

The problem with wanting to tell the true story while not the ideology is that sometimes you can't seperate the two.

There are a lot of other stories that I think are interesting and worth telling that have nothing to do with the sort of stuff you want to see.

This is the heart of the matter. Mr. Scherer does not seem to want to share with us his criteria for what makes a campaign story "interesting and worth telling." What kind of idiot Time reader would find a story on Meghan McCain's blogging more "interesting and compelling" than McCains positions on matters of war and peace or wealth and poverty? Why is Michael Scherer, an educated and intelligent man, covering a presidential election by writing largely about superficial matters and avoiding substantive issues? It just doesn't add up.

and, admit it, michael. you love him all the more for his 'misspent youth'. i always love how that phrase is employed when it's a son of privilege; but, lawdy be, any other class or race and it's 'delinquent', 'trouble-maker' or worse.

وصلات 1
وصلات2
وصلات3
وصلات4
وصلات5
وصلات6
وصلات7
وصلات8
وصلات9
وصلات10
وصلات11
وصلات12
وصلات13
وصلات14
وصلات15
وصلات16
وصلات17
وصلات18
وصلات19
وصلات20
وصلات21