02/21/2008 12:23:34 PM EST

The Scandal -- what it says about McCain & the Media

posted by winsor

Were any of you watching Keith Oberman last night when the McCain love nest scandal broke?

Email Print
Google Technorati del.icio.us digg reddit Facebook
Were any of you watching Keith Oberman last night when the McCain love nest scandal broke?
 
It would seem like very good news for Democrats, but....
 
I thought that the reactions of Keith's Media posse were worth noting, Jonathan Altar's being typical.  He was very hesitant to fire on McCain and came up with a series of lame excuses to explain it all away. ("Sex scandals don't have any staying power.") There is a difference between good reportorial skepticism over an early report and scrambling to protect a buddy.  Altar was scrambling to help McCain. That is in stark contrast to the automatic "let's pile on!" attitude that he and his colleagues have shown on the Oberman show over past weeks whenever Keith served up a big fat Hillary target for them to shoot down -- with gusto.
 
The good news for Barak's campaign (it's been clear for a couple of weeks he will defeat Hillary) is that in the General, he will face considerably less outright opposition from the Media than Hillary would have. 
 
The bad news is that McCain has a lot of friends in the Media, even among the "Liberals," friends that none of the other Republican candidates had. (Huckabee is a novelty act.) That is one of the reasons why he could effectively mount a "no money" campaign. He got free coverage. You can see these friendships at work in this scandal. And, sin ce many reporters like both Obama and McCain, we'll get lots of "Barak says this, John says that, so who knows?" That flattens real differences between the candidates and turns them into oatmeal. Sympathy for McCain could neutralize attitudes among reporters who would, if any other Republican was running, normally be outright for Obama. Jonathan Altar's take on the scandal was shared by other pundits who have  shown themselves to be pro Obama. (BTW, none of this is a slam on Obama -- it's about the Media & McCain.)
 
You would think, looking at the polls, that Iraq will be a Jonah stone tied around McCain's neck,  Don't count on that. McCain's gaffs, like "100 years in Iraq" will be minimized by many "reporters."  ; Large chunk's of the Media already love the Surge and living saint, Gen. Petraeus, who McCain has declared to be "one of the greatest Generals in American history," right up there with Patton, Grant & Stone Wall Jackson.  If you watch CNN, there are times you could confuse Baghdad with Boca, the way they portray it. McCain's angle will be, "We just need a little bit longer. We have a miracle working General, Tikrit is now like Central Park, and I am not stupid like Bush or an inexperienced amateur like Obama. Peace with honor."  Light at the end of the tunnel etc.  (Don't shoot the messanger.  I share none of these views.)
 
And the Media will cut McCain miles of slack on all this  because he is a former POW who spent hours chatting with them on his bus,  who loves the troops because he was one, and who is Mr. Surge.  IMO, the potential effect of McCain's friends in the Media on the campaign has been vastly underestimated.
< diet drinks, no mention of... | Help There's A Liberal book >
 Display:
The Scandal -- what it says about McCain & the Media | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
Very Well Put.. (none / 0)
I dont think its so much a total media bias toward McCain, I believe it is more the fact that there are still more people in this country who lean to the right (or at least have more conservative viewpoints on things) than the left.

I Know, I Know, Bush is a creep and a terrible president, but I dont know if he has succeeded in changing the overall viewpoints of many Americans...Just because they wouldnt vote for him again doesnt mean they are still not more to the right in values


by bobo1 on 02/21/2008 01:04:40 PM EST

You're wrong again, Ken/bobo1 (none / 0)

People have learned that tax cuts and giveaways can be very bad for the country.  We have only to refer to MedfordTim's article.  When a President's numbers are that low, a dramatic shift has taken place.  Those numbers represent a huge majority of people who reject everything that Bush says.  And they have very little uncertainty about that judgement, as you can tell by looking at the miniscule numbers for undecideds.

In fact, the number of people who support Bush seems to be not much more than the percenta ge of absolutely ignorant people that you would expect to split between both sides in any poll.

Almost 80% disapproval, and the trend in that direction has been developing for several years.  It's not a flash-in-the-pan thing like Bush's numbers right after 9/11, which didn't stay high for nearly as long.

You can't get 75% of Americans to agree about anything for very long.  But they do agree that Bush -- and every pseudo-conservat ive thing he stands for -- is bad for the country.

What's more, we're seeing something that never was possible in the past: The acceptance of a woman and a black man (yeah, I know, but I call myself "white" even though all of us have ancestors from Africa) as valid Presidential candidates.  That, also, is a major sea change.  Immoral, anti-American Republicans already have tried sexist and racist attacks against them but have found those attacks to be roundly rejected by their own members.  And when even Bill Clinton's non-racist attacks were villified, we see that those are impotent weapons (although it also shows that we still have a lot to learn).

I don't know what party you support, Ken/bobo1.  In fact, I'm not even sure that you care the least little bit what happens to our country.  You seem to studiously avoid judgements about what is good and bad about your country -- although I think that is simply because you don't give a damn about what is good or bad for your country.  And although I also am not sure that you care one way or another about the growth and influence of corporate power, I do believe that you are typical of many immoral, anti-American Republicans.  You're just in it for yourself.

And you are being totally rejected by a huge majority of your countrymen.

This is not a gradual swinging of the pendulum back to the left.  This is the train wreck of the ideology promoted by the immoral, anti-American Republican Party.  And because the right-wing media has been trumpeting immoral, anti-American Republican policies constantly over the last two decades, we know that this sea change is something that cannot be overcome by any advertising campaign.

Bush-Dog Democrats will be replaced by progressives.  Republicans will be defeated by Democrats.  Obama will be our next President.  And the left (I'm not interested in degrees from "center") wi ll control two branches of our government.

I have never before felt so confident as to make such a bold prediction, especially not this far before an election.  But for the first time in my life, I think that progressives stand a chance of having a big impact on the course of our country -- it's not a big one, but it's better than every before.

I hope that I'm not wrong, but, KenTX/bobo1, I am certain that you are.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/21/2008 02:39:30 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Again Juarez, you show your short-sightedness... (none / 0)
Bobo here (Ken is just a figment of my imagination)...

You show in your response exactly the short sightedness that "Progressives" suffer from in this debate.

I am certainly not going to question Bush's popularity and status as the worst president in our history...he is. I despise the Bushes for everything that they stand for...they are the epitome of Corporatism and greed...on this I think we can agree...

What I am saying is that just because Bush is a creep and evil, that doesn't mean that the people who call themselves Republicans all are too...Im not talking about the die hard Bush supporters, Im talking about people like me who are Anti-Amnesty, Anti NAFTA, Pro Gun, Pro Choice and dont want the government getting into every aspect of our business.

I am talking about small farmers, small business owners, teachers, police officers and common people who are not being heard or represented by either party - The Corporatist Republicans (super rich) or the Amnesty/Progressive Democrats (give away the farm and raise our taxes)

There are ALOT of people like myself who cannot be labeled simply Progressive or Conservative, and the candidates and the media are coming after us...not you, you have already made up your mind...

Bush fortunately is not running in this election. Yes, McCain is just as bad as Bush (and you know my views on him) but Obama does not stand for many of the things I believe in. Yes he'll probably win if nominated, but he isnt going to represent me or my interests. So where does that leave us? 8 more years of somebody NOT doing what we the people want or expect... 

I hate to tell you this, Juarez, BUT THERE ARE MORE PEOPLE WITH VIEWS LIKE MINE THAN THERE ARE PROGRESSIVES OR CONSERVATIVES. I am the voter that Obama or McCain have to convince, and right now, neither of them are too impressive.

This sea of change you describe is coming my friend...its just not gonna be what you hope for or expect. People like me, who are in the majority in this country, will decide the future of this nation...not you.


by bobo1 on 02/21/2008 03:11:41 PM EST

[ Parent ]
You've still missed the essential point. (none / 0)
You've learned -- if you've been paying attention at all -- that tax cuts and giveaways can be very damaging your country.

Your education is only beginning.  You will learn over the next few years that other facets of your ideology also are not representative of reality or good for your country.   And that's all that we've wanted: the chance to show you how wrong you have been.

You've done half the job for us by failing.  Now all we have to do is to succeed.

By the way, we're not going to take away your guns yet, although we will prevent the more stupid among you from doing more damage.  And you will give up your guns eventually as more and more of you die off.  Eventually we will have fewer gun deaths and a more peaceful society despite you.  And those other social issues also will become less important as those of you who are educable are educated.

But that's just it: it's the education you will receive that will change our country for the better.  You will resist.  Immoral, anti-American Republicans have been promoting the same failed ideas for generations, even though they never have a positive impact on our country and always cause great damage.  But your influence will wane, and I becoming more convinced th at you won't be hindering our progress for very much longer.

The world will become a better place despite you.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/21/2008 03:40:08 PM EST

[ Parent ]
That's less of a "true liberal" and... (none / 0)
... more of a Communist.

I consider myself a true liberal and I am pro-2nd Amendment, for starters.

I don't want anyone's income, personally.  What I want is for everyone to agree that a portion of our productivity has to go to support the commons.  Most people in this country can agree on that.  Then I want us to agree on what is required to have a well-functioning commons -- specifically, that government needs to be in control of life and death issues like the military, police and health care.  That's really it.  That's certainly the limit of my "socialism" and I think that's the case for most other folks here too.

I think hate crime legislation is utter bullshit.  Hate crimes are why we have judges -- to throw the book at reprehensible assholes.  We don't need extra law.

by jarett on 02/22/2008 02:50:25 AM EST

[ Parent ]
Does it really matter what you say about me? (none / 0)

Well, you do seem pretty dense at times, bobo1/KenTX. 
We know now that you are a liar and a fraud.  Your judgments about others mean nothing.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/22/2008 12:17:31 AM EST

[ Parent ]
The McCain "scandal" (none / 0)
I hope the NYT has more than the "anomymous" source that was quoted in the article. They need to be coming MUCH stronger than that. The rightwing media will jump all over them, much like they did to Dan Rather. I'm not getting the timing or the aim of this story, based on what is there, or rather not there. In addition, they did endorse McCain with this information in hand, did they not? Why did they not mention it at that time? They are going to get ROASTED by the right wing.

by mijoh on 02/21/2008 02:40:17 PM EST

It's not a sex scandal. (none / 0)

It's a sexy influence-peddling scandal, and the right-wing media will have a hard time fighting it.  All they can attempt to do is to minimize it.  To do so, they'll have to say things with will hurt their overall objectives.  And it also robs them of a weapon they would otherwise use against Democrats.

Also, the New York Times had to endorse a candidate from both parties.  If they had not endorsed an immoral, anti-American Republican, there would have been hell to pay within their offices, not to mention in the media.  But who else could they have endorsed?  A much more blatant hipocrit like Romney, or the looney tunes Huckabee?  I don't think so.  The immoral, anti-American Republicans just don't have anyone good to offer this year.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/21/2008 02:55:32 PM EST

[ Parent ]
I think there is some justification (none / 0)

McCain has not been as much of a "family values" type of hypocrit as so many others in his party have.  I think it's because of this that there is not much of an appetite for raking him over the coals on this thing.  I hope not, because frankly I don't really want to hear about it.  Let his wife kick his ass over it and then let it go.  I've long ago stopped believing politicians are more moral than anyone else.

The conflicts involved (because she is a lobbyist) are the more important point, but I believe the story will fade away.  I could be dead wrong.  I thought sure Huckabee's part in the release of the rapist who murdered that girl would derail him but it didn't seem to stick to him much, although I still think it probably would have come back to haunt him if he had been nominated.  I suppose it depends on whether anything more damning than just this innuendo surfaces.  If McCain goes down it ought to be because he supports certain foolish agendas and policies of Bush, not because of something hokey like this, unless there's more to it than we're hearing about so far.

by bfaul on 02/21/2008 02:47:41 PM EST

Did I miss something? (none / 0)

Is Huckabee a viable candidate?

There were too many weapons available to crush him.  The release of the murderer was only one.  All of those weapons had their intended effect.  Huckabee is just waiting for the pallbearers to carry him out to the graveyard.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/21/2008 02:59:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
No, he's had it (none / 0)
I didn't intend to imply he was a contender.  I just found that the parole issue didn't seem to damage him as much as I thought it would.

by bfaul on 02/21/2008 03:30:27 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Huck's Miracle! (none / 0)
Like Cenk just said, this could be Huck's miracle.  Let me take it a step further.  So if McCain goes down hard, what are the Republicans going to do?  If you think Huck is out since it’s a virtual statistical impossibility due to McCain’s overwhelming delegates – think again!  When the shit hits the fan, these pledged delegates can vote for whomever they want! 

by rev24 on 02/21/2008 03:47:06 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't be a tease. (none / 0)

It couldn't happen.  Not my dream come true.

Could it?  Really?

oh, wow.

Democrats would be running against a party whose leader was even more stupid than Bush.

Whew!  I got dizzy there for just a second.

by Juarez Traveller on 02/21/2008 04:25:07 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Don't forget.... (none / 0)
Miracles were Huckabee's major.  And if you don't think that videos funny, then you're dumb.

by Spencer on 02/21/2008 04:25:09 PM EST

[ Parent ]
Huckleberry's miracle will be (none / 0)
McCain keeling over before November.  He probably prays to Jeebus daily to take him soon.

SAM: What's new, Normie?
NORM: Terrorists, Sam. They've taken over my stomach and they're demanding beer.

by Spinny on 02/21/2008 05:36:42 PM EST

[ Parent ]
dont think so (none / 0)
Poll after poll after poll shows that the American public is against the war. McCain's stay in Iraq 100 yrs statement will resonate with voters because the Democrats are going to bring it up every chance they get. . McCain represents the failed bush policies . The media other than faux news are not going to be cutting McCain any slack.


by Chinese Democracy on 02/21/2008 04:39:10 PM EST

The Scandal -- what it says about McCain & the Media | 16 comments (16 topical, 0 hidden)
 Display: