s skippy the bush kangaroo: you know things are going bad for mclame when his base (the media) turns on him...

skippy the bush kangaroo

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

you know things are going bad for mclame when his base (the media) turns on him...

Photobucket - Video and Image Hosting

poor john mcsame...even anonymous joe klein of primary colors time's blog swampland is picking on him...by pointing out the obvious:

john mccain said this today in rochester, new hampshire:

this is a clear choice that the american people have. i had the courage and the judgment to say i would rather lose a political campaign than lose a war. it seems to me that obama would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign.
this is the ninth presidential campaign i've covered. i can't remember a more scurrilous statement by a major party candidate. it smacks of desperation. it renews questions about whether mccain has the right temperament for the presidency. how sad.
joe goes on to point out that of course, there have been worse things said in other campaigns, but usually said by surrogats or 527's. this is the first time in joe's memory that one candidate has essentially accused the other of actual treason.

we point this out not because it's news that mclame is desparate and willing to shoot off his mouth without thinking first...that's not news to anyone who's been paying attention.

but rather we find it interesting that a pillar of the mmm (multi-millionaire media) finds it newsworthy. the trend seems to be that pundits are actually paying attention to the crap coming out of mclame these days, and not dismissing it as "authentic maverickism."

this might be a good thing.

addendum: elrod at the moderate voice points out that this sort of reckless accusation-tossing will hurt mclame amongst independents, the folks he needs the most to win:

who will be most put off by this? independents. one thing i’ve learned from participating on this blog with joe gandelman is that independents do not like all the mud-slinging, fear mongering, and accusations of treason. in 2004 bush could get away with that because he ran a base election and not a play for the middle. mccain, on the other hand, needs to do well among independents in order to win. these tactics will only turn independents off and mccain looks, well, unpresidential.

double addendum: well, apparently not all of the media has noticed. huffpo reports that cbs deliberately edited out from their newscast an historically-incorrect answer from mclame to a question from morning personality katie couric, and instead inserted an answer to a totally different question!

from the transcript:

katie couric: senator mccain, senator obama says, while the increased number of us troops contributed to increased security in iraq, he also credits the sunni awakening and the shiite government going after militias. and says that there might have been improved security even without the surge. what's your response to that?

mccain: i don't know how you respond to something that is as-- such a false depiction of what actually happened. colonel macfarland was contacted by one of the major sunni sheiks. because of the surge we were able to go out and protect that sheik and others. and it began the anbar awakening. i mean, that's just a matter of history.
in fact, as spencer ackerman and ilan goldenberg have reported, the record firmly establishes the opposite: instead of being caused by the surge, the key signs of the anbar awakening occurred not only before that strategy was implemented, but before it was ever conceived.

yet mccain's error was not seen by any cbs evening news viewers. as msnbc's keith olbermann noted (video below), "cbs curiously, to say the least, left it on the edit room floor. it aired katie couric's question, but in response, it aired part of mccain's answer to the other question instead." (ironically, this edit came on the same day that mccain's campaign released a video mocking the media's "love affair" with obama.)

the fact remains, however, that the military official cited by mccain, then-colonel sean macfarland, described the anbar awakening in september 2006 -- four months before the "surge" was even announced -- noting that tribal leaders were "stepping forward and cooperating with the iraqi security forces against al qaeda." moreover, a military review written by macfarland notes that his unit actually left anbar before most of the surge troops arrived; his success in the region came between june 2006 and february 2007.
huffpo has an embed of olbermann's report on this, you may want to check it out.

(tip o' the kangaroo tail to memorandum) for all the links!)
posted by skippy at 8:22 AM |


"the mccaine mutiny."
commented by Anonymous Anonymous, 10:21 AM PDT  
It's causing me physical pain to agree with something Joke-Line says.
commented by Anonymous PhysioProf, 12:00 PM PDT  
Spot on, skippy. I also think the Sadly, No and Hilzoy takes are right on.
commented by Blogger Batocchio, 5:44 PM PDT  
Whoops, here's the direct Hilzoy link.
commented by Blogger Batocchio, 5:46 PM PDT  

Add a comment