|
|
Post by StPetersburgHoya (Inactive) on Feb 20, 2008 20:47:45 GMT -5
Is this something? I'm confused. I know he really recast himself after the Savings and Loan scandal and the dems would love to put a Republican in the position of having to defend his sex life. But does this really matter? www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/us/politics/21mccain.html?hp |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 20, 2008 21:16:20 GMT -5
I think the story is a hatchet job, but such is life right now in American politics. Remember, four years ago, many members of the media helped to attack the military service of a distinguished and decorated veteran with nary a question of the authenticity of the attack.
I think the "favors for a woman" component of the story will fade, but the "cuddly with lobbyist" angle will have more staying power. It cuts against McCain's "straight talk" message and will just generate links to Keating 5.
On Edit: McCain's campaign didn't do him too many favors with its response --
"It is a shame that the New York Times has lowered its standards to engage in a hit and run smear campaign. John McCain has a 24-year record of serving our country with honor and integrity. He has never violated the public trust, never done favors for special interests or lobbyists, and he will not allow a smear campaign to distract from the issues at stake in this election.
"Americans are sick and tired of this kind of gutter politics, and there is nothing in this story to suggest that John McCain has ever violated the principles that have guided his career."
While McCain has served with distinction, they don't do him any favors by trying to go way back and trying to argue that McCain has always served with integrity. McCain himself has admitted that he hasn't due to Keating 5. They're better off pointing to his record as a reformer.
|
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 20, 2008 22:30:21 GMT -5
Re: St. Pete's question, it only matters if there are photos or some other smoking gun. Right now, there doesn't seem to be much to the story. And I'd be surprised if there were any more to it -- the NYT has had plenty of time to investigate.
Re: The Ambassador's point re: McCain's response, one of the WaPo columnists (I think it was Broder) wrote a column earlier this year on the disappearance of "boilerplate" in American politics. I don't think the statement is as crummy as The Ambassador does, but agree that a more neutral "boilerplate" type statement would have been more appropriate. Like...
"Senator McCain appreciates the work the NYT does, but disagrees with the tone and content of this column. Senator McCain has been a strong voice for openness, fair play, and good government while serving in the US Senate and hopes to continue working for positive change on these issues as the Republican nominee for President of the United States."
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,374
|
Post by SDHoya on Feb 21, 2008 9:56:12 GMT -5
I think McCain's response was the right one. In a way, I think this article may serve to do exactly what he has failed to do for the past few months, that is, rally the Republican base. Last night on Fox News Sean F-ing Hannity was defending McCain. CNN did not seem particularly impressed by the article either.
This is a really pathetic attempt at an expose about the Senator. It three pages of old news, with little real analysis of McCain's actual involvement in the Keating affair. As that kind of article would likely not gain much attention, it is bookended by unsubstantiated allegations of a sexual affair. I'm not sure whether this shows a political leaning in the NYT, so much as it shows that they are certainly not above the desire to sell papers with tabloid style journalism.
|
|
bubbrubbhoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
We are the intuitive minds that plot the course. Woo-WOOO!
Posts: 1,369
|
Post by bubbrubbhoya on Feb 21, 2008 11:03:38 GMT -5
What a hatchet job. I was appalled reading the article, which is composed almost entirely of innuendo and accusations. You just knew that the New York Times would finally turn on their darling (whom they endorsed as the Republican candidate) when they realized that yes, he is a Republican, and I guess today is the beginning of that effort. Expect more of this crap through November.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Feb 21, 2008 12:10:05 GMT -5
Then again, it's perfectly possible that the McCain crew arranged with the NYTimes to do this, to make McCain look more Republican-y and thus burnish his credentials with conservatives. I imagine he's pulling in incredible amounts of cash this week as a result.
It's such a trivial issue after all. I mean, if the Times spent this much time detailing every congressperson's too-cozy relationships with lobbyists, we'd owe them some respect.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 21, 2008 16:58:26 GMT -5
I'm not so sure that it is fair to directly liken this to the Swift Boat Veterans of 4 years ago. Whether you agreed with them or not really wasn't the point. There is no doubt that Kerry's actions were viewed by many, including Vietnam veterans as being unpatriotic. Again, he had his views and they were different than some others. Regardless, there were prominent distinguished veterans that were absolutely appaled by his words and actions over the past 30 plus years. Whether you side with them or not doesn't really matter. Those feelings were very real and were brought on by Kerry's own actions, again regardless of whether you agree with them or not.
In this case, there appears to be at best an appearance of potential impropriety. Was there more to it? I don't know, but to directly equate this to the actions of the Swift Boat Vets is unfair at the very least.
|
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Feb 21, 2008 17:48:12 GMT -5
It always smells funny to me when a paper (or network or other news source) has been sitting on a story like this for weeks and months. It either means there are problems with the story, or they were waiting for a specific time to run the story. Either way, it feels like contrary to the purpose of a newspaper - to report the news.
I remember reading about this story months ago and the fights over whether to publish or not. Now it finally comes out and it just seems like the backstory is a bigger issue than the story itself.
|
|
theexorcist
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 3,506 
|
Post by theexorcist on Feb 21, 2008 20:22:37 GMT -5
What really gets me is that this led off the newscasts when two arguably more important stories - the storming of the US Embassy in Belgrade and the shooting down of the spy satellite.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 21, 2008 22:41:46 GMT -5
I'm not so sure that it is fair to directly liken this to the Swift Boat Veterans of 4 years ago. Whether you agreed with them or not really wasn't the point. There is no doubt that Kerry's actions were viewed by many, including Vietnam veterans as being unpatriotic. Again, he had his views and they were different than some others. Regardless, there were prominent distinguished veterans that were absolutely appaled by his words and actions over the past 30 plus years. Whether you side with them or not doesn't really matter. Those feelings were very real and were brought on by Kerry's own actions, again regardless of whether you agree with them or not. In this case, there appears to be at best an appearance of potential impropriety. Was there more to it? I don't know, but to directly equate this to the actions of the Swift Boat Vets is unfair at the very least. The one problem with your response is that it ignores what the Swift Boat ads were fundamentally about. Here is the script of the group's first advertisement: SBVT Ad: "Any Questions?" John Edwards: "If you have any questions about what John Kerry is made of, just spend 3 minutes with the men who served with him." (On screen: Here's what those men this of John Kerry) Al French: I served with John Kerry. Bob Elder : I served with John Kerry. George Elliott: John Kerry has not been honest about what happened in Vietnam. Al French: He is lying about his record. Louis Letson: I know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart because I treated him for that injury. Van O'Dell: John Kerry lied to get his bronze star...I know, I was there, I saw what happened. Jack Chenoweth: His account of what happened and what actually happened are the difference between night and day. Admiral Hoffman: John Kerry has not been honest. Adrian Lonsdale: And he lacks the capacity to lead. Larry Thurlow: When he chips were down, you could not count on John Kerry. Bob Elder: John Kerry is no war hero. Grant Hibbard: He betrayed all his shipmates...he lied before the Senate. Shelton White: John Kerry betrayed the men and women he served with in Vietnam. Joe Ponder: He dishonored his country...he most certainly did. Bob Hildreth: I served with John Kerry... Bob Hildreth (off camera) : John Kerry cannot be trusted. -------------------------- They claim Kerry attacked them/the country in some way, so they do the same thing they accuse him of doing - dishonor a veteran. The focus of the ad is on alleged lies about his awards, which then turns into an attack on his sworn testimony before the Senate. While some of this testimony may not have been politically correct, since the Swift Boaters are seeking truth, maybe they should sit down and decide whether there were atrocities committed by American troops in Vietnam, and, in that sense, there is a historical truth that many Americans are hesitant to acknowledge. Kerry may have gone too far, but, if they thought Kerry had lied, why not pursue the issue in a legal forum and seek redress? At the same time, it is worth looking at how the Senators reacted at the time to his testimony, and they, distinguished folks almost to a person (Fulbright, Pell, Javits, et al.), in that time of division, did not react with disgust. But, in essence, you captured why the ads worked -- they capitalized on public sentiment to tarnish a distinguished veteran because most want to forget the darkness that was Vietnam and don't want to accept that certain things happened there. But, make no mistake about it, the ads were not about truth. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 21, 2008 23:39:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 21, 2008 23:44:40 GMT -5
I referred to the Swift Boat Veterans (not by name) in my response to SPH just to paint a picture of the unfortunate landscape in which the McCain piece was run. But, the idea that hifi would try to lend credence to their smears remains troubling. Back on topic, I think this McCain story won't survive the weekend unless something changes -- i.e. report of a favor for the lobbyist or something to give steam to the innuendo of an improper relationship. Heck, it is an afterthought right now on most of the talking head shows. |
|
|
|
Post by AustinHoya03 on Feb 21, 2008 23:56:39 GMT -5
Ah, my bad. CTRL+ F for "Kerry" and "Swift" didn't yield anything and I somehow missed your comment above. I retract my booing.
|
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Feb 22, 2008 0:01:05 GMT -5
Wasn't McCain himself the first target of Bush's swiftboating tactics? I seem to remember Bush getting Vietnam vets to criticize McCain back in 2000.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Feb 22, 2008 0:09:40 GMT -5
Wasn't McCain himself the first target of Bush's swiftboating tactics? I seem to remember Bush getting Vietnam vets to criticize McCain back in 2000. Here is a recounting of that: archive.salon.com/politics2000/feature/2000/02/11/veterans/index.htmlThere is another fringe activist named Ted Sampley who has been dogging/annoying McCain for years. I don't think many put too much stock in Sampley's attacks. |
|
|
|
Post by Coast2CoastHoya on Feb 22, 2008 0:24:06 GMT -5
#1 reason I was anti-Bush in the first place was how he and his campaign treated McCain in 2000.
Of course, he's provided ample reason since then.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 22, 2008 13:00:28 GMT -5
Ambassador, I wasn't trying to defend either the Swift Boat guys or the McCain story. I was just pointing out that a direct parallel is a bit of a stretch. On one hand, you have total heresay and innuendo. Is there truth behind it? I don't know, but if so it certainly hasn't been revealed yet. On the other hand, you had a very controversial war and individuals with very deep seated emotions on both sides. To some of them the words and actions which Kerry supported for over thirty years was highly offensive. Was that a valid emotional response? That is a matter of opinion, but in any case, it wasn't complete fabrication. That is all that I was saying. Was it agenda driven? Quite possibly, but to some that agenda was very valid and in their mind worthy. Is the McCain story agenda driven? Most likely, but in that case, the controversy seems to be somewhat artificial in the very least.
|
|
|
|
Post by seattlehoya11 on Feb 22, 2008 13:33:30 GMT -5
Hifi... I might be able to go along with the first half of your reasoning, but the second is just plain false. You're far too intelligent to argue that the Swift Boat ads were anything but politically motivated. Come on, just look at the timing and the people who financed them. In both cases you could definitely argue that the controversy was relevant close to when the initial actions occurred, but 30something years later, it has to be politics.
In both cases I don't mind people following their own convictions and not voting for a guy based on this sort of controversy, but a smear campaign is a smear campaign.
|
|
rosslynhoya
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,595
|
Post by rosslynhoya on Feb 22, 2008 13:46:17 GMT -5
The #1 reason that Kerry was nominated in 04 was that he was a "distinguished and decorated war hero" ... making his service in Vietnam perfectly acceptable grounds for discussion. If there's an analogy to be drawn to the present controversy, it's that McCain's post-Keating5 obsession with the intersection of money and politics is undermined by his continued history of cozy financial and personal relationships with companies and interests that have business before his committees. This is a "controversy" that wouldn't hold any water if the Republican at the center of it were Romney or Huckabee. When you make a single facet of your life the centerpiece of your bid for the presidency, you should expect that facet to be scrutinized and held to a higher standard.
|
|
hifigator
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 6,387
|
Post by hifigator on Feb 22, 2008 14:04:28 GMT -5
Hifi... I might be able to go along with the first half of your reasoning, but the second is just plain false. You're far too intelligent to argue that the Swift Boat ads were anything but politically motivated. Come on, just look at the timing and the people who financed them. In both cases you could definitely argue that the controversy was relevant close to when the initial actions occurred, but 30something years later, it has to be politics. In both cases I don't mind people following their own convictions and not voting for a guy based on this sort of controversy, but a smear campaign is a smear campaign. I don't want to beat a dead horse and I pretty much agree with you. The ads were certainly at least in part politically moticated. My only point was that the motivation for the ads was there beforehand, rightly or wrongly, whereas the momentum for this story is pretty much entirely coming from a manufactured smear, motivated exclusively to tarnish McCain. I don't think you could say that about the Swift Boat ads entirely, although it was certainly one prominent factor. |
|
